Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on progress on the privatisation of the electricity industry.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): Following the successful flotation of the 12 regional electricity companies with a total value to the taxpayer of around £8 billion, we are now proceeding with the sale of the two generating companies. I announced on Friday that the total value to the taxpayer of National Power and PowerGen would be more that £4·3 billion. This share offer has now been successfully underwritten. The offer will close on 6 March and dealings will commence on 12 March. The total value of the businesses comprising the electricity supply industry of England and Wales of more than £12 billion makes it by far the largest privatisation ever undertaken in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Viggers: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the great skill with which he has undertaken these privatisations. In connection with the regional electricity companies, is not the most pleasing feature the fact that 98 per cent. of eligible employees have taken up shares and become shareholders? I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the skilful and sophisticated arrangements that he has put in hand for the underwriting of the generating companies for privatisation. There have already been signs of innovative thinking by the electricity industry and, in the long run, will not the beneficiary be the consumer?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the main purposes of privatising these industries is to bring new thinking into the way they operate. I also agree that one of the pleasing things has been the way in which the employees have taken shares in the company, and many of them are continuing to hold those shares. That is satisfactory.

Mr. Haynes: I want to know what is going on. I think that the Secretary of State had better have a look at this privatisation of the electricity industry. What about the prices that these people are charging? I thought that the aim of privatisation was to look after the consumer. but consumers in my area are getting a right belting on prices. Is it not high time the Minister had a look at this, or he will not be coming to the Dispatch Box any longer?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman and I obviously read the same newspapers, but the companies have not yet made their proposals for price increases. When they have, they will have to justify them to the regulator, who I know will be looking at them closely.

Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of privatisation, the vast overwhelming number of commercial and industrial customers are already getting lower electricity prices than they were a year ago, before privatisation, thanks to competition and the ability to shop around?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. The vast majority are paying lower prices as a direct result of the competitive nature of the regime for commercial and industrial customers.

Mr. Dobson: The Secretary of State talked about bringing new thinking into the industry. Can he confirm that the new thinking started off with his approving a 9·2 per cent. price increase for domestic consumers last year, when the projected rate of inflation, however inaccurate, was 6 per cent. and that the companies are now contemplating increases up to 13 per cent. when the projected rate of inflation is only 5 per cent? That is the kind of new thinking that customers could well do without.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have not yet had any proposals from the companies. As I have said, they will be making their proposals to the regulator, who will have to be satisfied that the increases are justified under the price regime that is included in the licence.

Renewable Energy

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the annual average level of expenditure on research and development into renewable sources of energy between 1974 and 1979 and between 1985 and 1989.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The annual average expenditure by the Department of Energy on research and development into renewable sources of energy between 1 April 1975 and 31 March 1979 was £1. 9 million, and between 1 April 1985 and 31 March 1989 the figure was £14·4 million.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which illustrates the commitment of this Government to renewable energies compared with that of the Labour Government. Is not the biggest problem with renewable energy sources the high cost of producing electricity from such sources? Would not it be difficult to get past the House provisions that made little old ladies pay twice or perhaps even more times as much as they would for electricity generated by coal or nuclear energy?

Mr. Moynihan: I thank my hon. Friend for his observation. It is as important for these projects to be environmentally acceptable as for them to be economically competitive. With the introduction of the non-fossil fuel obligation we have been able to create a marketplace so that commercially competitive renewable energy projects can come onstream effectively.

Ms. Armstrong: I hope that the Minister is looking at new projects for possible development and that at some


stage he will look at one in my constituency, where, as part of an attempt to regenerate Consett, we are considering a wind park on part of the old steel works site. I am not sure that it would exactly replace what was there, but I hope that the Minister will consider these projects carefully, because there are people in my area who still do not have electricity and we hope that these projects will supply electricity to more far flung places.

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. It is important to identify new wind projects. She will be pleased to learn that the largest tranche of research and development expenditure is on wind energy. I am not aware of the specific project to which she referred, but I know that my officials will be only too happy to look in detail at any proposals. We want to give commercially viable wind energy projects as big a push as we can.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no virtue simply in increasing expenditure on research and development on renewable sources of energy for its own sake? Does he further agree that what is needed is the careful examination of each project to see what its potential long-term yield is for the future?

Mr. Moynihan: I hope that my hon. Friend heard my earlier comments and is satisfied that we are aware of the importance of ensuring that proposed projects are commercially viable. Many are not. The great advantage of having the non-fossil fuel obligation is that we not only back the research and development with increasing resources, but provide a marketplace for those projects to play an important role in the diversity of energy supply on competitive terms.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is not the reality that for the Government renewables are still the poor relation? Less than £25 million per year is spent on research and development into renewables while more than £95 million is spent on research and development in the nuclear industry. The other day the Government closed down the Camborne geothermal facility with a loss of 30 jobs. The evidence is that the cost of producing geothermal electricity is 31 per kWh, the cost of producing electricity is about 3·5p per kWh and the cost of producing nuclear power is more than 6p per kWh. On all assessments, nuclear power is a bad bargain and renewables are good, but the Government are blind to any sensible opposition.

Mr. Moynihan: I am sorry to inform the House that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. The hot dry rocks project in Cornwall was not closed down last week. That important project was given a new direction and a boost of £3·3 million for the period 1991 to 1994 so that we can work on it with our European colleagues and make it as economically viable as possible. I spent a day visiting that project. The cost per kilowatt hour to which the hon. Gentleman referred bears no reality to the sort of cost produced from the research on geothermal hot dry rocks, which can be up to 10 times higher than the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted. That said, however, it is an important source of potential renewable energy within the European Community and further research is being undertaken to try to make sure that we can make it commercially viable. If we cannot, we cannot put further research and development into that energy source. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, any Government who spend £160 million on renewable

research and development are committed to renewable energy projects and any Government who increase next year's provision by 20 per cent. more than that for this year are committed to undertaking research and development for commercially effective renewable energy projects.

Energy Conservation

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent representations he has received about the adequacy of existing energy conservation schemes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My right hon. Friend and I have received frequent representations about our energy efficiency programmes to which we accord high priority.

Mr. Knox: What is my hon. Friend's estimate of the potential for further energy savings? Is he satisfied that the existing schemes will enable us to achieve those savings?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It has been estimated that further savings of up to 20 per cent. are possible. I am convinced that we shall be able to approach that target through a mixture of regulations, such as the improved building regulations, labelling, advice, and targeted grants such as the home energy efficiency scheme, which directs grant aid to low-income households.

Mr. Loyden: What encouragement has been given to local government to draught-proof the windows and doors of older houses so that many millions of homes can benefit from the conservation of energy?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can confirm that the estate action programme is directing substantial sums of money towards upgrading older council estates. In addition to that, the home energy efficiency scheme is targeted precisely at older dwellings, which are often occupied by low-income households who need grant aid to improve the energy efficiency, draught-proofing and insulation standards of their homes.

Coal Mines

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many pits he expects will still be operating by 1993.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Decisions on future capacity are a matter for the British Coal Corporation, but it is clear that the future of every pit depends crucially on the degree to which management and men are successful in containing costs and continuing their productivity improvements.

Mr. Mullin: The Minister will be aware that, since the privatisation of electricity, the country has been flooded with cheap coal, which no amount of productivity improvements are capable of competing against. In the unhappy event of the Minister's party winning another general election, not one pit in the north-east will survive. I invite the Minister to deny that.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The future capacity of the north-east coalfield is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. It would not be right artificially to restrict imports of coal and to insulate British industry from overseas competition. The future of that coalfield depends on continuing the productivity improvements of recent


years, and I pay tribute to the British Coal Corporation and to those who work for it for the 85 per cent. productivity improvement since the coal strike.

Mr. Hannam: The Government have invested some £7 billion in British Coal since 1979. That is surely proof that the Government see a good future for a competitive coal industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the 85 per cent. productivity increase since the miners' strike is evidence that the coal industry has an important role to play in the future energy market?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely agree. The Government have put more than £17 billion of grant aid into the coal industry since 1979. That is proof of our financial commitment to the industry. The future prosperity and success of that industry, however, depend on continuing those productivity improvements.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister offer the House some estimate of the effect on the balance of payments deficit, which is already enormous, of our increasing reliance on imported coal, which will become more and more expensive, to the ruinous deprivation of the country?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It would not be to the advantage of the balance of payments or of British industry artificially to restrict imported energy sources. I confirm, however, that until 1993 British Coal has secure contracts with the electricity generators and I anticipate that after 1993 electricity generators will recognise the value of an indigenous source of supply.

Mr. Dickens: Is not it a fact that the future of the British coal industry lies in the hands of the mineworkers themselves? Is not it marvellous that once the power of stupid trade union leaders such as Arthur Scargill is diluted the men at the coal face respond and have increased their productivity by 87 per cent. since the coal strike?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I cannot improve on my hon. Friend's description of the situation.

Mr. Barron: The Minister knows full well that the framework of privatisation of the electricity supply industry has thrown British Coal's marketing into chaos. Does he honestly think that the £17 billion investment of which he boasts is a sound investment, given the ending of current contracts in 1993? When will the Government take action not just in the interests of the miners, who have improved their productivity, but in the national interest, instead of increasing the growing energy deficit of this energy-rich country?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is up to the industry to prove the soundness of that investment, but the signs are that management and workers are rising to the challenge and can mine coal competitively.

Offshore Oil and Gas

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the level of direct employment in the offshore oil and gas industry in 1990; and what is his estimate of the number of jobs indirectly supported by the industry.

Mr. Moynihan: Direct employment offshore in 1990 was at an all-time record level of 36,500, some 19 per cent.

higher than in 1989. The number of those employed indirectly in the oil and gas industry is considerably larger than those working offshore.

Mr. Marshall: As a former Aberdeen councillor, I welcome that answer as good news for Aberdeen, for the north-east of Scotland and for the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that it shows the efficiency of private enterprise in creating jobs?

Mr. Moynihan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Dr. Godman: The expansion is indeed good news for Scotland—if not for my constituency, where unemployment at 13·8 per cent. is no laughing matter. I remind the Minister that Scott Lithgow on the lower Clyde is the finest shipbuilding and oil rig construction yard in the United Kingdom. Has he any hope to offer to my oil rig workers and dockers, or anything to say about Scott Lithgow?

Mr. Moynihan: There is no doubt that the position for many offshore fabricators is very strong. Their order books are strong. They have opportunities now because levels of investment and activity in the North sea have never been more buoyant. I hope that they will use those opportunities to the full by producing, on time, good-quality products to meet foreign competition.

Nuclear Power

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the production of electricity in the United Kingdom is currently supplied by nuclear power.

Mr. Wakeham: In 1990 about 20 per cent. of electricity available in the United Kingdom came from United Kingdom nuclear sources.

Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for the foreseeable future nuclear power has an assured role in generating safe, clean and reliable energy?

Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I can confirm that. Nuclear generation is vital to ensure security and diversity of supply and brings with it excellent environmental benefits in that it produces no carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen doxide.

Dr. Reid: Will the Minister confirm that the largest single industrial user of electricity provided by any source in Scotland is the Ravescraig steel plant? Is he aware of the announcement of a further 1,500 redundancies there? Can he give an assurance that, under a privatised electricity set-up, the costs of the decline of Ravescraig and the demise of the steel industry will not be passed on to the individual electricity consumer in Scotland or in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Wakeham: Questions to do with the steel industry or the Scottish industry are clearly not for me, but under the system that we have introduced industrial consumers generally pay lower prices as a result of the competitive nature of the electricity industry.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that unless more nuclear power stations are built and the review is accelerated, there will be very few new nuclear


power stations by the turn of the century? Will not that lead to the disintegration of an industry which it is most important to preserve?

Mr. Wakeham: I know that my hon. Friend knows a great deal about the nuclear industry. As he is aware, a full-scale review of the prospects for nuclear power in the future will be undertaken in 1994, when the Sizewell B project will be nearing completion. That review will have to take all the relevant factors into account.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State confirm that—given the progessive unravelling of the beautiful Heath Robinson structure erected by his predecessor, the right hon Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the withdrawal from privatisation of the nuclear industry and the fact that 40 per cent. of generators are now not being sold on the market—by the time of the next election less than 50 per cent. of the electricity-generating industry in England and Wales will be in private hands? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman and his honourable lemmings on the Back Benches think that they voted for in 1988, and if that is what they call a success, we should welcome many more such successes.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. Very shortly, the generating industry—National Power and PowerGen, that is—will be in the private sector; indeed, they are at this moment. Nuclear Electric will remain in the public sector for the foreseeable future. I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the facts with some view of creative accountancy. The 40 per cent. stake that the Government retain in the privatised companies will be retained for another two years; I have explained what will happen after that.

Offshore Oil and Gas

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the level of investment on the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1990.

Mr. Moynihan: My estimate of investment in 1990 on the United Kingdom continental shelf is £3·5 billion. That represents a significant increase of around one third on 1989.

Mr. Smith: Is not that a remarkable achievement by Shell, Esso, British Petroleum and the other oil companies that invest in the North sea? Given the substantial fall in the real price of oil in the past decade, is not it also a tribute to the improved technology there, as well as to the fiscal and regulatory regime governing the area? Will my hon. Friend continue to press Treasury Ministers to ensure that our tax regime encourages marginal investment?

Mr. Moynihan: The answer to my hon. Friend's first two questions is yes; as for the third, the Government are fully aware that a stable fiscal regime and regulatory framework have been part and parcel of the success of investment in the North sea over the past decade.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister just said, in a kind of coded language, that the Government would allow the tax regime to be shifted in relation to the smaller underground pools of oil. When miners run into narrow seams of coal, however, the Department decides that they are unprofitable—in its language—and closes them. If it is right to use

every possible effort to maximise oil production, the same should apply to getting out the coal, and pits such as Creswell in my constituency should not be shut.

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman has obviously misunderstood the code.

Mr. Bill Walker: The Opposition constantly seek to ignore the effects of our indigenous energy, and our investment in oil and gas, on the performance of the United Kingdom economy, while constantly drawing attention to the technology and out-of-date practices in the coal industry. Does not that clearly show that they are people of the past, not of the present—and certainly not of the future?

Mr. Moynihan: I entirely agree. I am glad that my hon. Friend has recognised the continuing outstanding success of our buoyant oil and gas market.

Mr. Doran: The Minister will know that a substantial part of the investment that he rightly praised relates to safety improvements. Is he aware that, according to the trade figures announced this morning, our present deficit includes an oil deficit of £109 million compared with the surpluses that we have enjoyed over most of the past decade? Does he agree that the main reason for that deficit is the need to close down platforms for safety modifications? Had the Government taken their job of ensuring safety more seriously, and had they accepted the Opposition's criticisms, the shutdowns would have been unnecessary, the improvements phased and the present large deficits avoided.

Mr. Moynihan: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. I agree, however, that the reason for our lower net exports is a temporary reduction in North sea oil production. The first priority must always be the safety of the work force in the North sea. If that means reducing output at any time, so be it.

Gas Disconnections

Mrs. Roe: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Director General of Ofgas about disconnection for debt.

Mr. Moynihan: I have had no specific discussions with the Director General of Gas Supply on the subject of disconnection for debt. I can confirm that the number of British Gas customers who have been disconnected because of debt is lower than at any time since 1977, when records were first kept.

Mrs. Roe: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply, especially as 3 million new customers have been connected. Does he agree that protection for debtors has increased since privatisation, not decreased?

Mr. Moynihan: That is absolutely true. From a peak of almost 62,000 in the year ended March 1988, just over 19,000 people have been disconnected for debt.

Mr. Allen McKay: Is not it also a fact that the drop in disconnections has coincided with an increase in the installation of credit meters, which have an automatic cut-off on what people can pay? As the Government are trying to encourage wage settlements below the rate of inflation, will the Minister tell the electric industry not to increase its prices by more than the rate of inflation?

Mr. Moynihan: On the substantive question, I acknowledge that the offer of a prepayment meter as an alternative to disconnection has played an important role, but the reality is that privatisation and the excellent work of the Office of Gas Supply have been paramount in assisting the gas industry to reduce the number of people who are disconnected for debt.

Unleaded Petrol

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase since 1989 in the number of petrol-retailing outlets selling unleaded petrol; and what is the level in other EC countries.

Mr. Moynihan: The United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association estimates that, at the end of November 1990, 98 per cent. of filling stations in the United Kingdom sold premium unleaded petrol, compared with about 80 per cent. at the end of 1989 and 20 per cent. at the end of 1988.
The latest available comparable figures for 1990 in the European Community were: West Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg 100 per cent.; Denmark and Netherlands 85 per cent.; Italy 64 per cent.; Ireland 50 per cent.; France 40 per cent.; Spain 19 per cent.; Greece 11 per cent.; and Portugal 4 per cent.

Mr. Carrington: Do not those figures, taken in conjunction with those for the sale of unleaded petrol, show the determination of the Government, the industry and the people to reduce the amount of lead in our air? Is it not it possible, perhaps through the European Commission, to encourage our European partners, who are not as environmentally friendly as we are, to improve their actions and environment?

Mr. Moynihan: I agree that it is important for the Government to continue to pursue that objective throughout the Community.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is welcome that so many petrol stations are making unleaded petrol available, but the Minister understands that the real test is the number of cars using it. What discussions are being held within the Department or with Treasury Ministers and officials to encourage the take-up of unleaded petrol by giving further tax incentives or cuts in petrol prices?

Mr. Moynihan: The latter point is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The 1990 Budget, which increased the duty differential to nearly 14p a gallon, was important. About seven out of 10 cars are capable of using unleaded petrol. The Department of Energy and other Departments have been promoting a publicity and information campaign to encourage those who can convert rapidly to do so.

Clean Coal Technology

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what support his Department is giving to the investigation of the prospects for clean coal technology.

Mr. Wakeham: My Department is currently reviewing coal-related research and development and this summer will publish a document setting out our strategy. Much important work on clean coal technology has already been carried out by British Coal and others.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that environmentalists should be greatly encouraged by the Government's clear commitment to clean coal technology? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but my right hon. Friend may like to remind them that the Government are contributing £17 million to 15 separate projects.

Mr. Wakeham: I confirm what my hon. Friend said. The current programme of more than 15 projects which are under way or planned has a contract value of more than £80 million and my Department's contribution is more than £17 million. I am not satisfied that we are doing enough. That is why we have set in hand a study to find out what more can be done.

Mr. Eadie: It is refreshing for the House to hear candour from the right hon. Gentleman about the investment in clean coal technology. Is he aware that the investment, which is running at about 3 per cent., is pathetic? In the quest for clean coal, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider Monktonhall colliery which, although it produces more or less sulphur-free coal and has received £14 million of investment, has been mothballed. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider reopening that colliery? It would result in jobs as well as sulphur-free coal.

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of what we are doing about clean coal technology, but Monktonhall colliery is a matter for British Coal's management, not for me.

Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that clean coal burn technology is important for not only the future of the British coal industry but the environment? Does he agree that it is important also in ensuring that we achieve the maximum use of our indigenous industry? Does he recognise that, although we may be in the lead in terms of research and development and investigations into these techniques, we are somewhat behind in building demonstration plants? Will he undertake to find ways to encourage the building of demonstration plants? That work can be done in various ways. It does not always involve Government money.

Mr. Wakeham: Yes, indeed. Recently we announced the provision of an additional £3·7 million towards British Coal's topping cycle project at Grimethorpe. That brings the Government's support for the project this year to £9·2 million and clearly demonstrates our commitment to supporting clean coal technology. We have set up a coal task force, a new advisory body to develop new strategies and project selection methods, and United Kingdom industry is strongly represented on that task force. That shows confidence in the way forward.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the failure to back the demonstration plants which the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) endorsed is putting British plant manufacturers at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and France? Would not it be better to put some money into that work? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that more money was spent tarting up his Department's headquarters than the Government are investing in clean coal technology?

Mr. Wakeham: I have no idea about that last point. I had no responsibility for those matters. I would support


any project that was worth while and could be shown to have a commercial future. The first projects that we demonstrate must have the possibility of being economically viable in the long term.

Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that coal will not have a future as an electricity-generating fuel unless the technologies of decarbonisation are improved to a level at which CO2 emissions are much lower? My right hon. Friend's efforts in that regard are greatly appreciated by people who work in the coal industry, as those developments will give them a future.

Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. My hon. Friend knows that most of the new power generation projects in the next few years are likely to be gas-fired projects. It is important that research and development should occur so that coal is increasingly thought of as a fuel to be used and is seen to be environmentally safe.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total spent by his Department in the current financial year on promoting energy efficiency.

Mr. Wakeham: Forecast outturn expenditure by the Energy Efficiency Office in 1990–91 is £23·4 million. That represents a substantial increase on expenditure last year of £15 million.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister examine the serious decline in the energy efficiency industry? Figures published recently by the Association for the Conservation of Energy show a 20 per cent. fall in the demand for heating control since 1987, a 34 per cent. fall in the demand for double glazing and a 49 per cent. fall in demand for cavity wall insulation. How can the Government claim to be taking energy efficiency seriously when the industry is in such a serious decline?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman quotes some figures which I do not deny, although I have not checked their accuracy. However, those figures relate to the construction industry and are not out of line with the general cuts in that industry. We have increased our expenditure on energy efficiency. We are anxious to improve energy efficiency because we believe that that is far and away the most important way in which to deal with problems of global warming and CO2. It is important for the hon. Gentleman to remember that the progress of that policy so far has been very encouraging. Over the past 10 years GDP has increased by 25 per cent. while energy consumption is almost unchanged.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

City Fraud

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss developments in the prosecution of City fraud; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I met the director of the Serious Fraud Office on 13 February to discuss matters of departmental interest.

Mr. Skinner: When the Attorney-General discussed those matters with the director of the Serious Fraud Office, did he refer to the Harrods swindle and the fact that Graham Jones, the former financial adviser to that company, wrote two letters to the Governor of the Bank of England accusing Harrods of breaking banking regulations, but the Governor refused to reveal anything to a Committee of the House? Why are the Government afraid of taking on Harrods? Why does not the Attorney-General act? Are the Government frightened to death of the real owner of Harrods, the Sultan of Brunei, who bailed out the Government several years ago when the pound was down to near-parity with the dollar?

The Attorney-General: I am sure that the latter part of the question owes much more to ignorance than to malice. The question of Harrods did not feature in my recent discussion with the director. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions made a joint statement in June or July last year stating that, following detailed examination by the Metropolitan police, the conclusion was that insufficient evidence was admissible for criminal proceedings to warrant a prosecution. Each director is always open to further evidence becoming available, but the Bank of England is its own enforcing authority.

Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the director of the Serious Fraud Office and his staff have prosecuted a large number of offences of serious white collar fraud and that they have not regarded the importance of the defendant as a criterion in taking that person to court? One example was Guinness. Is not that a clear sign that people who commit serious white collar crime will be treated in exactly the same way as a burglar or a shoplifter?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am grateful to him. In the two years that the Serious Fraud Office has operated, it has prosecuted to conviction more than two thirds of the people whom it has charged. The Government have been responsible for not only the introduction of the Serious Fraud Office, but before that—in the days before the Crown prosecution service—the introduction and resourcing of the fraud investigation group in the DPP's headquarters. The Government have also legislated for the confiscation of proceeds of crime. Of course, the prosecuting authorities pay no regard to personalities. That is the answer to those who endlessly snipe from a basis of ignorance at the Government's response to the challenge of fraud.

Statutes

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Attorney-General what is the latest date to which statutes in force are up to date.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The publication of new Acts in statutes in force is up to date as at 11 February 1991, other than part of one 1990 Act. Information on the repeal of whole Acts is up to date as at 1 January 1991. Information on the amendment, or partial repeal, of existing Acts is brought up to date periodically.

Mr. Spearing: Even if they are brought up to date periodically, does the Solicitor-General agree that statutes in force, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, can never be up to date because statutes enforceable in the


United Kingdom include self-acting regulations of the European Economic Community? Does the Solicitor-General agree that, since agreement on the package for 1992 involving financial and commercial matters, the change in enforceable statutes is now even greater? Should not there be some warning in front of the volumes of statutes in force to put lawyers and others on their guard?

The Solicitor-General: Lawyers who advise on matters relating to the European Community are well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. The longer-term methods for dealing with statutes in force must be computerisation and projects on that are coming forward for financial approval.

Law Society

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the president of the Law Society to discuss matters of concern to the legal profession.

The Attorney-General: No meeting is scheduled at present between myself and the president of the Law Society, with whom I enjoy a warm relationship.

Mr. Viggers: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. He will know of the Law Society's interest in judicial appointments. It is concerned that solicitors should be more readily appointed to the Bench and that the areas from which appointments o the Bench are made should be more broadly based. I understand that meetings are planned shortly with the Lord Chancellor, but has my right hon. and learned Friend any comments to make on the position at present?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Lord Chancellor will listen with great care to all suggestions made to him with a view to broadening the range from which judicial appointments are made. As for solicitors, although candidates are, naturally, considered on their merits, the Lord Chancellor is anxious to encourage more solicitors to put themselves forward for judicial appointment when they have reached the appropriate age and standing. He consults more widely than ever before on this matter and is evaluating the results of a pilot scheme designed to improve the methods by which solicitors are identified for potential judicial appointments.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General detect any concern on the part of the Law Society about the inability of senior members of the judiciary to distinguish between innocence and guilt? Does he have any plans to take action on that? My question is motivated neither by ignorance nor by malice.

The Attorney-General: I do not answer for the Law Society. The hon. Gentleman will know that any judicial system is only as good as the quality of the evidence fed into the trials over which judges preside. The judges hold the ring and enforce the rules. Although every effort must be made—the hon. Gentleman knows that every effort is made—to rectify any miscarriage of justice that may later be found to have occurred, the people of this country acknowledge that our judiciary is of a high standard.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the public's confidence in members of the Law

Society would be greatly enhanced by the setting up of the legal ombudsman? Will he report on how that system is progressing?

The Attorney-General: This is the age of the ombudsman and I am sure that his arrival has been generally welcomed. However, it is too early for us to assess what progress he is making.

Mr. Fraser: When the Attorney-General meets the president of the Law Society, what will he be able to do to assuage what the Lord Chancellor called the perfectly genuine cries of hardship from legal aid practitioners? What will be the percentage increase for legal aid work that should take place after 1 April this year and what proposals does he have for easing the cash flow for legal aid practitioners who are suffering from high interest rates and the fall-off of work that used to be subsidised by the commercial and conveyancing sectors?

The Attorney-General: These are all important matters which the Legal Aid Board keeps under review.

The Gulf

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 4 February, Official Report, columns 14·15, what representations he has received on the extent to which the principle of international law relating to minimisation of civilian casualties has been adhered to during carpet-bombing in the Gulf conflict, and whether these civilian losses are proportionate to the military advantage expected.

The Attorney-General: I have received two letters from the public about the minimisation of casualties. I should emphasise that allied forces have instructions to attack only military targets or facilities supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Attorney-General aware that on Saturday night I rang the ever-courteous clerk at Downing street to ask whether Her Majesty's Government had been consulted about the use of napalm in the Gulf? She in turn consulted Sir Charles Powell and the answer came back that it was far from clear. As a member of the War Cabinet, will the Attorney-General clarify whether the use of napalm, the horror weapon of the Vietnam war which gave us the image of the burning girl running in sheer horror, is legal in international law?

The Attorney-General: There is no convention or instrument of international law bearing on the use of napalm. However, its use, like that of all weapons, is governed by the principles that I described when I last answered the hon. Gentleman's question regarding the minimisation of casualties three weeks ago. To those on the receiving end of any of the modern weapons of war, each one probably qualifies as a horror weapon.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Southern Africa

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the discussions the Minister for Overseas Development had during her recent visit to South Africa.

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the visit by the Minister for Overseas Development to southern Africa.

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister for Overseas Development to southern Africa.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Minister for Overseas Development had during her recent visit to South Africa.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My most recent visit included both Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa. I was able to discuss recent developments and future prospects with political leaders in both countries and to see some of the aid projects that we are assisting. During my visit, I announced a further 10,000 tonnes of food aid for Mozambique and a number of new commitments for teacher training, rural and community development projects and student awards for black South Africans.

Mr. Townsend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the apparent success of her visit. It was billed as an opportunity for her to have discussions on political reform in South Africa. Will she give the House the benefit of her conclusions?

Mrs. Chalker: I can genuinely tell the House that I was most impressed by the speed with which the moves towards political reform are taking place. The week that I was there saw the 12-hour meeting between the African National Congress and the Government—two days later, on 15 February, good progress was announced. It is clear that President de Klerk and his Government are determined to move ahead as quickly as possible to repeal not only the Group Areas Act, but the land acts and the population registration acts. While we were there, during the time of the meeting on 12 February, an order was made to obviate the need for any child to be registered by race. We should encourage good steady progress and the repeal of all apartheid acts by recognising what the South African Government are doing.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of continuing the exciting developments of political reform in South Africa should be highlighted by increasing the openness of the South African market to international trade? In addition, our aid programme should be geared particularly to assisting community development. It is much more important to develop that aspect of South Africa than simply to worry about the principle of voting.

Mrs. Chalker: I should be wrong not to say that the principle of voting is important. We hope that the all-party congress to discuss the modalities of the new constitution will proceed apace. Of course, it is critical that we lift the bans holding back the progress of black South Africans. South Africa needs investment if it is to provide training and job opportunities to young black South Africans. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) for welcoming our announcement not only to give more than £500,000 over four years for teacher training, but to support other projects that will lead to training and work for young black South Africans so that they can take their rightful place in the new South Africa.

Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most encouraging features about British Government aid to developing countries in recent years has been the improvement in its quality and effectiveness? During her visit to Mozambique in particular, was she able to see that improvement in effectiveness taking place?

Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, I was. I went up to Magude and then further up the Limpopo railway line where the workers are doing work with our money at the same time and so improving that line. I saw work in the port and work on power stations. It is going well and the quality is high.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that her discussions showed that courage and persistence are needed by Nelson Mandela, Chief Buthelezi and President de Klerk in trying to overcome the prejudices and provocations that are still likely to unsettle the path to one person, one vote and to full economic development?

Mrs. Chalker: Yes. We hope that all parties will get together to join in the process of peaceful change. I stressed that to all whom I met—the Pan Africanist Congress, the ANC, Inkatha and AZAPO—the Azanian People's Organisation. I hope that there will soon be progress.

Sir Russell Johnston: Was one of the views that the Minister reached on her visit that the European Community should increase its regional allocation from the figure agreed under Lomé IV?

Mrs. Chalker: In fact, Lomé IV will not apply to South Africa, but it applies to Mozambique. We shall have a debate tomorrow night on the details of that. I shall be able better to answer the hon. Gentleman's question at that time, because it needs to be answered at length.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister confirm that what is needed in South Africa, as well as peace, is food? Is it true that a large part of the allocation of moneys that she announced will be held over until the beginning of the financial year?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady does not understand the progress of giving food aid. When we are asked for help, we ask in what way that help can most aptly be applied. Sometimes it is with transport costs and sometimes it is with transport equipment, but all that we have learnt in recent years is that we must keep the food pipeline full. We are now nearly at the end of February. Food is needed from April onwards. That is when it will get there and that is what has been arranged.

Mr. Tony Banks: Did the Minister have the opportunity to discuss with conservationists in southern Africa the impact of the construction of the northern buffalo fence in the Okavango region of Namibia? Is the Minister aware that that fence has been constructed because of the requirements of the EC to establish a foot and mouth disease-free range, but that its impact on the wild creatures—elephants, giraffes, buffalo and wildebeest—is catastrophic? Will she consult the authorities in Namibia to call a halt to the construction of that fence until a proper environmental investigation of its impact has been made?

Mrs. Chalker: As I understand it, the authorities in Namibia have not been concerned with this matter—it involves the authorities in Botswana. As the hon. Gentleman knows from questions that I have already answered to him, we are looking into this matter most carefully.

Mrs. Clwyd: Although additional assistance for Mozambique is welcome, does not the Minister realise that an emergency appeal made by Mozambique and the United Nation's last year for £76 million to help with famine, refugees and the effects of war has still not been met? However, the Minister said—I am very puzzled by this—in an interview in the environment section of The Guardian on Friday:
If I needed more money, I could go and get it.
Is she telling the House that despite the fact that 27 million people in Africa are starving and crying out for help, she has not even bothered to go to the Treasury to ask for more money to meet their needs? If that is the case, she is failing them and failing in her job.

Mr. Chalker: First, it is 29 million people who may be at risk of starvation in 25 African countries. We are extremely well aware of the problem. Secondly, we have planned our expenditure and we have planned our

provision with the non-governmental organisations which I met last week to make sure that we keep the pipelines as full as we can. However, it simply cannot be left to Britain alone. That is why I have written to all other major aid donors to make sure that they make adequate contributions and we shall carry on doing so ourselves.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of children in sub-Saharan Africa who are likely to be orphaned as a result of AIDS; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: In the analysis for UNICEF, covering 10 African countries, the data are all estimated and based on selected assumptions. Therefore, the data must not be used as though they were exact. They can indicate only that during the 1990s between 3 million and 5·5 million of the 50 million children under 15 years of age by 1999 may be without mothers.

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend will be aware that according to the ODA's own research, one eighth of all children in the Rakai district of Uganda are orphaned and that that may be connected with the 30 to 40 per cent. HIV positivity rate among young adults there. If that trend continues unabated in sub-Saharan Africa, is not a disaster looming?

Mrs. Chalker: We believe that the situation in Rakai may be far worse than in other areas. As I tried to explain in my letter of 18 February, it is not right to extrapolate from those figures to the rest of Africa. When dealing with this terrible disease, we must beware speculation. We are doing a great deal through the World Health Organisation's global programme on AIDS to help with the AIDS factor and we shall continue to do so.

The Gulf

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): The final phase for the liberation of Kuwait and the achievement of the United Nations resolutions was launched in the early hours of Sunday 24 February. After more than six months of international endeavour to achieve a peaceful resolution of the crisis, the continuing refusal of Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions, and the rejection of the final deadline from the coalition, left us no alternative but to proceed with the final ground campaign. The need for this was further confirmed by the fact that, at the very time that Tariq Aziz was still purporting to negotiate in Moscow, Saddam Hussein was giving orders for the wholesale destruction of Kuwait and its oil fields, and for further outrages against its citizens.
The land operations involve forces of no fewer than 11 countries: the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt, France, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and, of course, Kuwait. They have now been under way for 38½ hours. So far, progress has been rapid and relatively little opposition has been encountered.
Excellent planning and preparation and, above all, determination have enabled the coalition forces rapidly to penetrate the extensive obstacle belt that the Iraqis had constructed both along the Saudi-Kuwait border and along a substantial part of the Saudi-Iraq border.
To the east of that front, coalition forces have now advanced well into Kuwait and have taken a significant number of prisoners. Many of the Iraqi units encountered surrendered almost immediately.
To the west, United States, United Kingdom, Saudi and French forces have mounted an operation into Iraq against Iraqi forces supporting the occupation of Kuwait. Some elements are encircling Iraqi units; others are breaking through defensive positions and beginning to engage Iraqi units directly. The 1st British Armoured Division is fully involved in the thrust and is now moving steadily forward.
The Saudis have announced that the number of prisoners of war taken by the coalition has now risen to 20,000. Casualties on the coalition side have been very light. As the House may be aware, two British soldiers lost their lives in the days immediately before the start of the ground offensive, and their families have been told of their deaths. On my latest information, there have been no British casualties in the main advance.
In support of the land advances, allied air forces, including British aircraft, have continued their attacks both on strategic targets in Iraq and on the Iraq ground forces in Kuwait and Iraq. The attacks are continuing in spite of poor weather conditions and without serious interference from the smoke of burning oil wells.
Maritime and amphibious forces in the northern Gulf are playing their part in the coalition attack. In particular, the Royal Navy is playing a crucial role in mine clearance operations. During the operations last night the Iraqis fired a Silkworm missile, which was destroyed by a Sea Dart fired from HMS Gloucester.
It is vital that we give all the support that we can to the coalition forces in their challenging task. One of the key advantages is the lack of knowledge that the Iraqis have about our exact positions and plans. We must preserve

that advantage. That is why we have been so concerned to restrict any information about the military operations that could be of help to the enemy at a critical time. I understand the great interest of the whole country in the progress of our forces, and particularly among the families of all those involved, and we shall do all that we can to give accurate information, provided that it can be done safely and without putting lives at risk. In the meantime, we look for the full understanding and co-operation of all those reporting and commenting on the battle.
This further phase of the campaign has started well, and every credit is due to General Schwarzkopf and all the coalition forces. However, they know that the Iraqi forces in the front line are their least capable and likely to be of the lowest morale.
The news so far has been good. There may be days ahead when it is more difficult. But whatever the ups and downs, our forces know that they have the support of all the House and the nation. Our prayers and our best wishes go with them as they complete the task.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I recognise the need to avoid making helpful information available to the enemy, and realise that that precludes the disclosure of some of the details that the House and the media may wish to hear. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I express sympathy with the families who have already lost loved ones in the conflict and relief at the low number of casualties and the high number of prisoners taken. I am sure that that is attributable in no small way to the bravery and professionalism of our troops.
I am sure that the whole House will recognise that responsibility for the intensification of the conflict lies with Saddam Hussein and his unwillingness to allay coalition misgivings about the failure of the laudable Soviet attempt to secure a last-minute peace settlement guaranteeing an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal from Kuwait. Could anyone accept the strength of a Foreign Minister's assurance that he could commit his troops to withdraw from a country while his President and Commander-in-Chief was giving orders to the same troops in the same country to put that country's land to the torch and its people to the sword?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the incursion into Iraqi territory by coalition forces is designed to cut off the Iraqis retreating northwards out of Kuwait and does not represent an alteration in the war aims? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the arrangements being made to assist in curbing the oil well fires? Can he tell the House whether napalm was being used by allied forces and, if so, for what purpose?
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister was in contact with President Gorbachev at some time between his last statement to the House on Friday and Saturday's deadline? Will he tell us the latest and most up-to-date position of British forces?
Opposition Members give their full support to our troops and the coalition forces at this time of peril. We share their determination that Kuwait should be liberated. We do so not in any spirit of complacency, which would be as foolish as it would be dangerous, nor with any sense of euphoria, which would be as insensitive as it would be inappropriate in view of the dangers ahead; we give that


support in a spirit of determination that a victorious conclusion for the military forces of the United Nations can be accomplished as speedily and decisively as possible.

Mr. King: I am very grateful for, and I know that the House very much appreciates, both the content of what the hon. Gentleman has said and the manner in which he responded to my statement. It is no secret that it is of the greatest support to our forces to know the strength of the support right across the House of Commons as they undertake this difficult and challenging task. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for speaking on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in touch with President Gorbachev, with whom he had a 45-minute conversation on Saturday morning. That was part of a wide consultation, including with Presidents Bush and Mitterrand, and the other leaders of the coalition. Indeed, a feature of the coalition has been the close contact that has been maintained, to which my right hon. Friend attaches great importance.
The hon. Gentleman asked particularly about napalm. I am pleased to confirm that it was used and that it proved extremely effective in tackling one of the difficulties in the obstacle belt—the oil-filled trenches to which the Iraqis intended to set fire at a time of their convenience. Instead, we arranged to set fire to them with napalm at a time of our convenience so as not to disrupt the attack. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to confirm that.
I appreciate also the support that the hon. Gentleman has given for the need to show some restraint at present about the flow of information. There is, of course, acute interest among all of us and the entire country about what is happening, but we must respect the fact that this is a challenging campaign. It has begun well, but we are now entering the critical phase of the land battle and it is vital that we give our forces all support at this time.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House will want to bear in mind what the Secretary of State said in his statement. I propose to give precedence today to those hon. Members who were not called following the statement on Friday. I ask for brief and careful questions.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Back Benchers wish to express their support for the coalition forces, and especially for our own forces, in addition to the support for them that has already been expressed by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill)? As this is Kuwait's national day, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate for the House to express its admiration for the conduct of those Kuwaitis who have been allowed to remain in Kuwait in the face of the plunder, looting and terror that has been wreaked on the Kuwaiti people by the armed forces and the secret police of Iraq? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that conduct of Saddam Hussein is another reason why it was right not to delay the ground offensive any longer?

Mr. King: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. I am sure that he is right to draw attention to the role and position of the Kuwaitis. I suspect that I was not the only hon. Member who heard that moving

comment on the radio earlier today when one Kuwaiti officer was asked whether he felt frightened or any fear: "Why should I? I am going home.- Recognition of the fact that the home to which the Kuwaiti forces go has been tragically and awfully disfigured should redouble our determination to see that home liberated at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I express to General Sir Peter de la Billiere and all those under his command our congratulations and fervent hopes for a speedy outcome to the land battle with the minimum of casualties? From the properly guarded information that the Secretary of State has given the House, it appears that the allies may be set for a successful military outcome. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a successful political outcome will depend on a proper judgment as to the time when hostilities should cease?

Mr. King: I am sure that the answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. We have made absolutely clear where we stand. We are determined to see the United Nations resolutions implemented, and peace and stability restored to the area. Those have been our abiding concerns. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to his hon. and right hon. Friends for their support at this testing time for our forces. We can be very proud of the way they have conducted themselves under the leadership of General Sir Peter de la Billiere. I spoke to the general about 30 minutes ago, and he confirmed that, within the last hour, the first armoured division had taken its first 100 Iraqi prisoners. As the division moves forward, it is coming into contact with more capable Iraqi units. I have no doubt at all that our soldiers will give an excellent account of themselves.

Mr. Michael Mates: Will my right hon. Friend, in passing on our congratulations and thanks to all our troops in the Gulf, acknowledge the debt that we owe also to all the staffs in this country from the people at the Ministry of Defence at High Wycombe to those in depots up and down the country—who have striven to make this operation, which has been a logistical nightmare, such a success? Will he acknowledge also that what has happened in the last 24 hours fully justifies the length, severity and determination of the air assault, which has come under so much criticism in some sections of the media?

Mr. King: We hope that this will be a short, sharp campaign with the minimum of casualties. As my hon. Friend has said, the opportunity to make it so owes a tremendous amount to the success, perseverance, courage and determination of all the air crews. Over the past weeks, those crews performed with great skill to ensure that on the battlefield the balance was tilted in favour of the coalition.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the credits do not stop there. In a very real sense, this has been a team effort. I am thinking, for instance, of the armed service units in Germany that surrendered some of their equipment and provided all the support they could, and of many civilians. Let us not forget how many British civilians are serving in what is a war zone to make sure that our forces, as well as Saudi and other forces, get the support that they need. I am very proud to play whatever part I can in what has been a remarkable team effort.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State aware that, on the very day on which British troops were being committed to battle in the Gulf, a vicious attack was launched on troops in the South Armagh region of the United Kingdom, not very far from where the Prime Minister had displayed such courage a few days earlier? Is the Secretary of State aware that this kind of treachery results from the warped thinking of the republican movement, whose attitude is that England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity? Is he aware that such thinking and such action can be met only with firm resolution and resolve and that they cannot be dealt with by concessions, any more than can the actions of Iraq?

Mr. King: Bearing in mind the personal threats that have been made against its members, the present Government have done as much as have any Government to make it clear that we shall make no concessions to, and that we have no respect for, terrorism from whatever quarter it comes. I know that that attitude is shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman-is right to draw attention to the fact that in the days before hostilities started, Saddam Hussein sought to intimidate and to threaten terrorism. I think that we can fairly claim that that did not alter our judgment and that it did not lessen one iota the determination of anybody in this House.

Mr. Michael Colvin: While paying tribute to the courage and skill of the allied forces, may I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on what I hope will have been Saddam Hussein's last speech, in which, following the announcement of the final phase in the campaign to free Kuwait, he called once more for a so-called jihad, or holy war, against the infidel? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing could be further from the truth than the claim that this is a holy war? As he has stated, the allied forces include eight contingents from Arab countries. Those contingents come as representatives of the United Nations to help a small Arab country which was seized by a tyrannical Arab neighbour. For Saddam Hussein—a member of the Ba'ath party, and therefore a non-believer—to make such a claim is surely the sickest of sick jokes.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the significant Arab contingents taking part in the ground campaign and to the determined way in which they are playing their part. None of those countries believed Saddam Hussein, and it is becoming increasingly clear, with the willingness of so many to surrender, that fewer of his countrymen believe him either.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Should not our thoughts be going out to those who are prisoners of war in Iraq? In particular, will the Minister make it clear that there will be no end to hostilities until we have a categorical assurance about the safe passage and return of prisoners of war?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We have never forgotten the position of our prisoners of war. I am sure that the House shares the concern that the last we saw of them was the pictures of two of our pilots on Iraqi television, and that we have had no news of others. The hon. Gentlemen will be aware that, in the earlier requests about the conditions that we would

agree for a ceasefire, we made it clear that the safe and immediate return of our prisoners of war was an absolute requirement.

Sir Michael Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend say a word about the extent of Saddam Hussein's scorched earth policy in Kuwait? In particular, can he confirm that the Parliament building has been set on fire? Does he agree that those responsible for such actions should be held accountable when the fighting ceases?

Mr. King: Figures have been given of 600 or 700 oil fires burning in Kuwait. There are reports of a programme of destruction of buildings in Kuwait. I have heard it said that the Parliament building and certain main hotels have been destroyed. Information on this has not yet been confirmed, but it appears that instructions have been given for the wholesale destruction of Kuwait, as I said in my statement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State will be aware that the House agrees with that part of his statement in which he said that we must not put lives at risk by giving more accurate information, but what about giving accurate information to families? Will he make sure that all families know whom to contact at all hours of the day and night, because they need reassurance? There is nothing like loneliness to intensify fear.

Mr. King: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that that is what is happening. If any right hon. or hon. Members have worries about the arrangements in their areas, I should be grateful if they would first check whether such arrangements are effective. If they have any query or uncertainty, I know that the office of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will follow that up. We have made the most thorough arrangements we can to help all the families—and, as hon. Members know, they are not just in this country. The husbands of some 10,000 wives in Germany are away in the Gulf. It is important to remember those families as well.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland are behind the troops in the Gulf as they battle for the freedom of Kuwait? Furthermore, they welcome the call of Her Majesty the Queen for the nation to pray, and their thoughts are especially with the contingent of Ulstermen in the Gulf. Can the Secretary of State give us any information about the welfare of that contingent? Can he give us an assurance that it will be the Government's policy to bring to justice those who have carried out the atrocities in Kuwait?

Mr. King: I can indeed confirm that our thoughts are with our forces at this time, and no less with our forces from Northern Ireland. On the information available to me, although I have not yet checked this, I think it probable that the first members of the British forces whom the Iraqi prisoners of war met were from Northern Ireland and I am sure that they were given a good welcome. We support the comments of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the allied ultimatum, with its reference to withdrawing to the position of 1 August, was quite meticulous in remaining within the United Nations mandate, whereas the Soviet proposal absolved Saddam


Hussein not only of the crimes that he committed before Saturday but of the torching of Kuwait and the intensification of the killing of Kuwaiti citizens?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman makes a perceptive point. There must be many people in Moscow who felt that they were negotiating in good faith but who now feel singularly betrayed by what they have found was happening and what Saddam Hussein's instructions were while Tariq Aziz was in Moscow.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that rumours persist of the most abominable atrocities in Kuwait? Will he welcome the statement made today by Prince Khalid bin Sultan in his military briefing that those responsible for atrocities in Kuwait will be held accountable when the war is over?

Mr. King: Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when the invasion of Kuwait took place, and I have made it clear that all individuals will be held personally responsible for their actions.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there have been excellent co-ordination plans for helping wounded troops from the battlefield to hospital, but that there has been no such co-ordination for counselling, psychiatric care, social services, rehabilitation, jobs and adapted housing for wounded personnel? As those matters are covered by a wide variety of Departments, will the Secretary of State recommend to the Prime Minister the appointment of a special Minister to co-ordinate all those necessities for service personnel?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman may not fully appreciate the work that has been done—and not just in terms of information on casualties. Counselling services, are available 24 hours a day throughout the country on a more comprehensive basis than ever before in our history. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members will welcome that.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the best news today is the low level of British and other allied casualties? Will he further accept that battle accidents can cause as many casualties as enemy action? Does he therefore agree that the long training, great skill and leadership that has gone into the preparation for this struggle reflects great credit on our service men and those of the coalition forces?

Mr. King: The whole House will listen with respect to my hon. Friend, who obviously has knowledge of these matters. It is no secret that, even before the tragic accidents which affected United States forces a little earlier in this campaign, we were giving great attention to the risk of accidents to our forces. The greatest possible attention is being paid to avoiding that. Indeed, my hon. Friend will have noticed yesterday that the speed of advance in certain places caused problems and that great care was taken, particularly by Jaguar pilots, to change their targets so as to make sure that there was no risk of such an accident.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that, amid the real qualms that hon. Members will have about a ground war, none can doubt that the allied coalition went that extra mile for peace? Whatever doubts hon. Members may have about

the conduct of the war, and whatever their residual anxiety about whether the allied armies will be confined to the clear lines of the United Nations mandate, is the Minister aware that, provided that the UN mandate is observed, there can similarly be no doubt that the allied armies will be fighting a just war, that they will be in the right and that they will include no more formidable an asset than our 1st Armoured Division?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I heard one of my hon. Friends say that we have gone not one, but 20 extra miles. It is true that we went an extra mile, and an extra mile again, even before the air campaign was launched and yet again with the attempts to see if there could be a resolution before it was necessary to launch the ground campaign. We have tried very hard in that respect. I hope that we shall now see the successful achievement of the United Nations resolutions which, I make it absolutely clear, remains our objective.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if five armchair generals were to go on television or on radio discussing plans and dispositions, it is likely that the majority of them would propose a staff solution? As that solution is likely to be of interest to the Iraqis, would it not be better for those armchair generals to desist for the safety of our forces?

Mr. King: It is true that because of our air supremacy and strength in other respects, and because of their own lack of communications, the Iraqis are short of knowledge as to where our forces are and their operations. One of the few sources at present available to the Iraqis are radio and television broadcasts. Therefore, it is vital that we do not convey information to them through those media that may be of value.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Was not President Bush's purpose in aborting the last chance of avoiding a ground war, with its attendant casualties, to ensure the destruction of Iraq's military capabilities so as to oblige his ally, Israel, with which there is a strategic alliance and which has wished the destruction of Iraqi forces ever since the Gulf war started?

Mr. King: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would make that intervention and address those remarks to the Arab members of the coalition, who are bound in our joint actions at this time, but I think that they would regard his intervention as an extremely silly remark.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Since the Iraqis have set fire to more than 200 wells, has my right hon. Friend any idea as to the quantity of natural resources that have been destroyed? When the war is over and we are trying to win the peace, will my right hon. Friend consider giving the Kuwaitis, as compensation, part of the Rumailia field that they do not presently own and also part of Zubeir?

Mr. King: The figures of the number of wells that have been destroyed are not absolutely clear at the moment. I understand that what has effectively been lost in the present fires is the current rate of production of oil naturally emerging which does not mean the long-term extinction of the oil reserves.

Mr. John Cartwright: Since one of the most powerful arguments for launching the ground offensive


was the intensification of the mediaeval barbarity inflicted on the Kuwaiti people by the Iraqi occupying forces, can the Secretary of State assure us that in the current debate about war aims the future safety and security of Kuwait will be high on the list of coalition priorities?

Mr. King: Yes, I can. I have made it clear that we are liberating Kuwait, and we seek to ensure that Kuwait stays liberated. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because at each stage of this tragic conflict that none of us sought, Saddam Hussein seems to have gone out of his way to confirm us in the rightness of our judgment.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if Saddam Hussein really believed that Kuwait was the 19th province of Iraq, the destruction of the oil installations was a peculiar way of showing it? Does he also agree that it is essential that an environmental team should be in train now, ready to go into Kuwait at the earliest possible moment to deal with the destruction of that country's environment?

Mr. King: The hon. Member makes a perceptive and fair first point. As for his second point, I understand that the Kuwaiti Government are working on it now.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend understand that my constituents have been subjected to a politically motivated peace campaign which has been an embarrassment to people of genuine good will and peace? Does he further understand that most of my constituents wholeheartedly support the coalition and are not much interested in impartiality? They are partial to their own troops and their own side, and they would be angry if they received the sort of so-called impartial reports that the correspondents have lately been sending us.

Mr. King: I have never doubted where the true views of the people of Yorkshire lie. I certainly understand the views of my hon. Friend's constituents. The longer the crisis has developed, the more this country and the world have recognised the need for the action that we are taking; and I have certainly felt that strong support at this difficult time.

Mr. Jim Lester: rose——

Hon. Members: That is two Conservative Members in a row.

Mr. Speaker: I know. I made a mistake earlier when I called two Opposition Members, so now I am balancing things up.

Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the military objectives of the coalition forces in Iraq are fully contained within our declared war aims and the United Nations resolutions?

Mr. King: I can confirm that.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: How can anyone seriously claim that this military operation is under the control of the United Nations when the United Nations Security Council has in effect been suspended and the United States of America is calling all the shots and commanding all the coalition forces, including the British

forces? How many more young people have to die before the politicians have the guts to tell the military to call a ceasefire and to make every effort through the United Nations to find a peaceful negotiated solution?

Mr. King: The hon. Member could make that contribution only if he refused to believe the evidence of what is happening in Kuwait. I heard him ask how many more young men would die, seeming blithely to ignore the appalling suffering and the outrages that have been committed in Kuwait. How many more people have to die before we can speedily complete this campaign and Kuwait can be liberated?

Mr. Robert Banks: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any idea of the numbers of tanks and vehicles and the quantity of equipment captured by the allied forces? As the campaign draws to a close, as we all hope that it shortly will, will the allied forces continue to give full attention to eliminating military targets which pose a threat to the future safety of Kuwait?

Mr. King: I can confirm that we are continuing the air campaign in spite of the poor weather, seeking to ensure that strategic areas which might be involved in the resupply of the forces in the Kuwait theatre are sufficiently inhibited.
I cannot give my hon. Friend exact figures on the capture of equipment, but just before I came to the House I saw the latest press briefing given by Brigadier General Neale of the United States, in which he gave further figures about substantial numbers of T72 tanks and spoke of tanks in republican guard units now on the move which had been captured or destroyed. However, it is clear that the figure is changing rapidly.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State recognise that many people in this country would have gone the extra mile—indeed, an extra 10 miles—before sending 17-year-olds into battle? What assurance, if any, can he give to those who have expressed concern about sending 17-year-olds with our forces into the land war?

Mr. King: I met a 17-year-old in Germany who was told that he was to be left behind because he was too young to go with his unit. His protests at not being allowed to go with the other forces showed clearly the tremendous morale and mutual support in the regiments and units that went to the Gulf.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whenever there is a conflict, many young Birmingham people are involved—[ Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Those people hope that one clear development will come out of the justifiable and dreadful Armageddon that has overtaken Saddam Hussein and his forces is that it will help to deter other petty Saddam Husseins from embarking on such dreadful adventures, which bring misery to their own people and to the rest of the world.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the importance of the position taken by the United Nations Security Council, and to the reason why the Security Council gave authority to member states to use all


necessary means to ensure that United Nations resolutions were observed. That is what we are doing, and if our aim is successfully achieved, it will strike a blow for better peace and security in the world in future.

Mr. David Winnick: When all is said and done, do not all of us—in the House and in the country at large—owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all the allied forces, who are engaged in fighting a monstrous tryanny which invaded, occupied, raped and pillaged a neighbouring country and, even now, continues to permit the foulest of crimes? Those responsible should certainly be brought to justice.
As for the consequences for ordinary Iraqi soldiers, surely the choice now lies in their hands. If they want to save their lives, they should surrender to the allies as quickly as possible—as, indeed, many are doing. Otherwise, many will undoubtedly be cut down and destroyed in battle; they will be dying for no purpose, and on behalf of a regime which holds them in utter contempt.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has put very eloquently—as he has done on other occasions—feelings which are, I believe, shared by all hon. Members who see the necessity of facing aggression in this way.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Royal Navy's contribution in clearing mines and protecting United States battleships has been out of all proportion to the size of its force?

Mr. King: I understood my hon. Friend to say that the Navy had made a major contribution. There is no doubt that at present the Royal Navy, and especially with its skills in mine clearance, is playing a leading and crucial part in the amphibious and maritime contribution io the campaign in the northern Gulf.

Mr. Dave Nellist: We have recently heard statements from the Minister in the Al-Sabah dictatorship that two years of martial law would follow the liberation of Kuwait. We have also heard repeated statements from Britain and America about hopes that another section of the Iraqi army would topple Saddam Hussein, leaving a dictatorship in charge. It is increasingly likely that the allied forces will occupy at least southern Iraq, and will stay for a considerable time. Where are the freedom and democracy for which so many young men and women from this country have been asked to die?

Mr. King: I should have thought that, on this of all afternoons, the hon. Gentleman could express some support for all our constituents who are in harm's way, and whom we wish God's speed in the hope of an early and safe conclusion to the conflict.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is it not a fine tribute to the Royal Air Force air crew and ground crew, many of whom come from the north of England, that so many of the targets which could have posed a threat to the ground forces this morning had already been destroyed before the troops arrived there? Will the RAF's continuing quest for the Scud launch sites be continued in the next few days so as to ensure that all those dangerous and mischievous missiles are destroyed?

Mr. King: Yes, the campaign against the Scuds and the attempt to prevent any further launches will certainly continue. It is difficult to obstruct them entirely, but it is

clear that the pressure they face, and the risk of detection, have contributed to some of the inacuracy that they have shown and the speed with which they have been deployed and fired.
When the history of this campaign is written, I think that it will be possible to assess just how effective the campaign has been. If my hon. Friend wants me to give a judgment now, I can say that it looks as though the actual achievements are rather greater than some of the earlier estimates.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Given the rapid, encouraging and gratifying advance that has been made, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that coalition forces are within a few hours at least of the southern Kuwaiti oil wells which are now ablaze? Will the speed of the advance be matched by action to try to extinguish those oil wells?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to caution the House and to remind it of my statement. The ground campaign has begun well, but we are moving into the critical phase and are encountering forces of greater capability—I do not want to exaggerate or diminish their capability—than those in the front line. In addition, we should recognise that there are a substantial number of them. On the hon. Gentleman's point about environmental considerations, it will be an early concern to extinguish that appalling and nasty blaze.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the risks that our skilled and courageous Air Force has had to take to minimise civilian casualties have been more than justified? Military commanders are carrying out exercises which are essential to prevent Saddam Hussein's military from launching a counteroffensive that could do irreparable damage to the allied forces. There are no military constraints on them doing what is absolutely essential.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right. The Iraqis still possess dangerous weapons and capabilities. Every day that the ground campaign is shortened will owe a tremendous amount to the skill and courage of our air forces, whose critically important work has not finished.

Mr. Bruce George: The speed and rate at which Iraqi forces were captured or surrendered must have exceeded expectations. Is not that a mixed blessing, as it might cause considerable logistical problems for the armed forces? The Secretary of State sent additional forces to Kuwait to cope with the many prisoners expected, but does he foresee sending further troops to cope with what one hopes will be many additional surrendered or captured forces?

Mr. King: No, we have no such plans. The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the campaign—which owes much, as he will understand, to the meticulous planning that went into it, including provision for medical and hospital facilities for prisoners of war. Extensive arrangements have been made, which I hope will prove adequate for the task.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have another statement this afternoon. I shall call three more hon. Members from each side.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that more than 30 countries from as far afield as Argentina, Niger and New Zealand have sent armed services contributions to the United Nations effort in the Gulf? Do not those contributions from such a wide range of countries show that this is indeed a United Nations effort?

Mr. King: That is absolutely correct. The substantial United Nations contribution dwarfs the only other comparable occasion—the Korean war.

Mr. John McAllion: Does the Minister agree with the Soviet spokesman who said that an opportunity for achieving the aims of the United Nations resolution without further bloodshed had been tragically missed? Does he agree that, rather than acting as Little Sir Echo to whatever George Bush said, the Prime Minister should have thrown the weight of this country behind the Soviet peace plan and against the war faction within the American Administration?

Mr. King: The hon. Member said that an opportunity to achieve the aims of the United Nations resolution without further bloodshed had been tragically missed. At that time, Saddam Hussein had given instructions for the total destruction of Kuwait.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of the land war so far, which has been due to the great courage of all the troops involved and the remarkable co-operation among soldiers of many different countries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the events of the past few days have confirmed that there will be peace in the Gulf only when Saddam Hussein is deposed and his military machine destroyed?

Mr. King: Our first objective is the liberation of Kuwait. Our next objective is the achievement of all the United Nations resolutions. We have made that position absolutely clear. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the determination of all the coalition forces and to the leadership of General Schwarzkopf, the commander-in-chief, in achieving the excellent progress that they have made so far.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), which I believe remains unanswered, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us clearly where the limits to the war aims lie, now that the land battle has been engaged?

Mr. King: With respect, I have answered that question about four times. There is no change in our position. We have made absolutely clear our commitment to the achievement of the United Nations resolutions.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the professionalism and bravery of allied troops, it must occur even to Saddam Hussein fairly soon that his days are numbered? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that Saddam Hussein will seek to vent his anger on Israel, which has been no part of the dispute or war? Does he agree that the coalition must keep an open mind about providing more support for the defence of Israel, should that anger be turned on Israel in further murderous attacks?

Mr. King: I do not think that Saddam Hussein is "about" to vent his anger on Israel—he has made a number of attempts. One of the most appalling features of the situation has been that Israel, a non-combatant country which is not in conflict with Iraq in this matter, has been deliberately attacked by Iraq. We have done all that we can to prevent that. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that our determination to do all that we can will continue.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My abiding concern is with our front-line soldiers. Several score of my young constituents are serving with the Scottish regiments, and presumably many of those young men are in Kuwait. Despite that concern, I seek an assurance about Iraqi prisoners of war. Given the squalid human rights records of Syria and Saudi Arabia, how confident are the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that those poor bloody Iraqi infantrymen will be treated by the Syrians and Saudi Arabians in conformity with the Geneva convention—in other words, humanely and compassionately?

Mr. King: All the coalition countries have made clear their commitment to the scrupulous observance of the Geneva conventions and have made extensive arrangements to that end. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross——

Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the truth.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman says that I know that that is not the truth. The International Committee of the Red Cross has already made visits—it did so before the conflict started—to satisfy itself about the adequacy of the arrangements for prisoners of war. I certainly give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that the British Government have made that absolutely clear. We are anxious that all the coalition countries treat prisoners of war in that way.

Prisons (Woolf Report)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the report of Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry into the disturbances last April at Strangeways prison, Manchester, and other prisons. I am grateful to Lord Justice Woolf and to Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Judge Tumim, who joined in part II of the inquiry, for such a wide-ranging and constructive report, which includes 12 recommendations and 204 proposals.
The events of last April were unprecedented and unacceptable. Control of one of our largest prisons was lost for 25 days. Significant violence erupted at eight more prisons and at others control was maintained with great difficulty. The country was shocked by the defiance and destruction that we saw nightly on our television screens. I utterly condemn the behaviour of the small minority of the prisoners who joined in that orgy of destruction. As the House will be well aware, 183 persons have been convicted or are now awaiting trial on charges including murder and riot.
The report concludes that some decisions might have been taken differently. Nevertheless, Lord Justice Woolf stresses, and I wish to stress to the House today, that the disturbances were handled with great skill and courage by the prison staff at all levels.
Although Lord Justice Woolf makes some critical comments about the prison service, he also emphasises that the public have every reason to be extremely grateful to the members of the service who over a number of years have shown immense dedication, courage and professionalism. I endorse that judgment.
Immediately after the end of the riot, my predecessor put in hand urgent action. Incidents of this sort must be dealt with firmly and quickly. We have therefore set up a new incident control centre, overhauled contingency plans and clarified the lines of responsibility for dealing with riots.
More staff have been trained in the new and improved techniques of control and restraint that are necessary to handle dangerous incidents. The stock of riot control equipment has been increased. We have completed a review of the physical security of prisons, in particular access to roofs, and substantial improvements have been made.
The country will not tolerate the kind of disgraceful behaviour witnessed last April. We must make clear our utter condemnation of it by introducing a new deterrent. We shall, therefore, as we have already made clear, bring before the House proposals to create a new offence of prison mutiny, which will carry a maximum penalty of 10 extra years in prison. However, Lord Justice Woolf emphasises that we need to balance security and control with justice and humanity and I wholly endorse that view. Guilty criminals have to be punished by the loss of their liberty. Dangerous criminals have to be detained to protect the public.
It is not the purpose of the prison system to provide holiday camps for prisoners, but it is not the purpose of the prison system to provide physical conditions that degrade and humiliate prisoners and strip away their self-respect.
Prisons should be places that are austere but decent, and provide a busy and positive regime which prepares criminals for their ultimate release.
Many reforms are already in hand, started by a major programme inaugurated by one of my predecessors, Lord Whitelaw, in 1979. Since 1979, eight new prisons have been built and 13 more are under construction. Over the next two years, 12 new prisons will be opened. The prison population is now some 4,000 below what it was in September 1989. That means that we are in sight of the end of overcrowding. We can now take those reforms a major step further.
I consider that the practice of prisoners having to slop out is degrading and intolerable. It makes it very difficult to run a sensible prison regime and should be brought to an end. The present target is to do that in 1997. Lord Justice Woolf recommends that it should be not later than February 1996. In my view, we can and should do even better. I am now launching a programme to provide all prisoners with access to sanitation day and night by the end of 1994. That programme will cost an extra £36 million over the next four years. I will find half that from existing provision, but I am glad to say that an additional £18 million will be provided.
I also consider that it is wrong for juveniles awaiting trial to be held in prison and I intend to bring that practice to an end.
The report also makes many helpful recommendations about the regimes that we provide for prisoners. We must not forget that while imprisonment punishes the criminal and protects the public, its other purposes are rehabilitation and preparation for a return to the community. Since 1988, there has been a substantial increase in the hours spent on education, from, 5·5 million to 7·7 million. I want to see more prisoners taking up educational courses and training in skills, so that they will have a better chance of leading a life free from crime when they are released. Prisoners must be kept constructively occupied in workshops and other activity, and Lord Justice Woolf makes important recommendations in that area.
Lord Justice Woolf also emphasises how important it is for prisoners to retain their family ties. In my view, it is vital that prisoners maintain that link so that they can assume their family responsibilities on release. It is also the thrust of Government thinking that everything should be done to avoid the break-up of families which can contribute to delinquency and crime. I therefore propose to increase the level of visits to prisoners and extend the arrangements for financially assisted visits for visitors who are on low incomes. I have also decided to increase the opportunities for home leave in open prisons from three times a year to six times a year. I am placing details in the Library of the House.
Lord Justice Woolf points out the value of cardphones. which allow prisoners to retain contact with their families. I am therefore announcing, subject to some limitation for security reasons, that cardphones paid for by prisoners will be provided in all prisons that do not already have them.
Despite the availability of cardphones, letters remain very important to most prisoners. Like Lord Justice Woolf, I believe that the present levels of censorship are unnecessary. I have therefore decided to abolish routine censorship in all establishments except dispersal prisons. Governors will retain, for security reasons, the right to censor.
Those measures represent a major series of reforms, but cover only some of Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations. He makes many other proposals, including the place of the prison service in the wider criminal justice system and the higher management of the service, and I shall give them careful consideration. I propose to issue a White Paper later in the year to take account of those recommendations and chart the direction of the prison service for the rest of the century and beyond.
The changes will transform the living and working conditions of both prisoners and prison officers, but they depend crucially on the managers and staff of the prison service. I have already visited many prisons and have been very impressed with the dedication and concern of the governors and staff whom I have met.
Industrial relations in the prison service have, from time to time, been troubled. The future well-being of the service requires a new spirit of co-operation on all the issues that we face. With that in mind, I saw the trade unions representing all prison service staff earlier today. I very much hope that they will respond in the spirit of Lord Justice Woolis proposals.
The events of last April marked a watershed in the history of prison service. We cannot, and will not, tolerate the savagery and vandalism in our prisons that we saw then. We have already taken urgent action to remedy deficiencies. Lord Justice Woolf's report recognises that, while prisoners must be held in secure conditions, a decent regime enhances security by making incidents such as those of last April less likely. The Woolf report recommends constructive changes to our prison system which build on the substantial modernisation of the last decade. I have announced today further reforms and more will follow. I commend the report to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: ; I begin by offering my whole-hearted congratulations to Lord Justice Woolf on producing a report which can lead to the radical reform of the prison system that this country has needed for so long. The theme that runs through his report is that, although our prison service is generally excellent, it is, all too often, a disgrace to a civilised community.
Like the Home Secretary, I condemn those responsible for the Strangeways riot. Like him, I note that Lord Justice Woolf believes that the prison service dealt with that disturbance, in general, with skill and courage. The important task now is to build on what we have learnt from that unhappy experience. I assure the Home Secretary that we welcome and will support his decision to end by 1994 the degrading process of slopping out. We also support his proposals for improved family visits, better access to families by telephone and letter, and juvenile custody.
Does the Home Secretary agree that the proposal that each prisoner should receive a contract setting out expectations and responsibilities could lead to a penal system that reduces the likelihood of further offences, rather than, as now, making them more likely? That requires the implementation of the whole report, I wish to press the Home Secretary on that, because he has not commented on Lord Justice Woolf's more fundamental recommendations.
I remind the Home Secretary that the majority of the report's proposals were urged on the Government a year ago by the Labour party and submitted in the Labour party's evidence to Lord Justice Woolis inquiry. In addition to preserving family ties, we recommended a national system of accredited standards; so does Lord Justice Woolf. We recommended a revision of disciplinary procedures, including final aappeal to an independent authority; so does Lord Justice Woolf. We recommended access to education, recreation and employment as a right; and so does Lord Justice Woolf. Those proposals were dismissed and derided by the Home Secretary's predecessor. We now look forward to and expect their speedy implementation.
Is it really necessary to wait so long for real progress to be made on those fundamental parts of Lord Justice Woolf's report? We appreciate that some of the structural reforms may take time, but could not the Criminal Justice Bill, which is passing through Parliament and has yet to go to the other place, have its long title amended to allow speedy implementation of at least some of the Woolf proposals? Were the Home Secretary to table new clauses, we would ensure their speedy passage.
How does the Home Secretary propose to implement the proposal that no establishment should hold more than a certified normal level of prisoners? He will recall that recent industrial disputes in the prisons happened because prison officers insisted that exactly that rule should be applied. I therefore ask him directly: is it possible to meet the Woolf requirements on accommodation without reducing prison populations to a far greater extent than the Government now intend? The Home Secretary will recall that we still have a prison population that is, pro rata, far greater than that of any other western democracy and, in the opinion of almost every commentator, far greater than it needs to be or should be.
Finally, I refer the Home Secretary to a paragraph in the report which described the prison service as succeeding
against heavy odds … to contain an almost impossible situation by showing immense dedication, courage and professionalism.
The impossible situation to which the report refers is not the Strangeways riot in particular but prisons in general. Since the prison service has acted in general with dedication, professionalism and courage, does the Home Secretary agree that the successful implementation of the Woolf report proposals depends on maintaining the good will of those who are employed in the service? Would not it be absurd to jeopardise that good will by implementing proposals for privatised prisons which are based on nothing more than ideological prejudice?
The Woolf report offers the chance for major reforms of our squalid and socially damaging prisons—reforms that will change them out of all recognition. I urge the Home Secretary to take that chance and to take it at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Baker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report on the work that Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim have done and for his support for my announcements today.
The right hon. Gentleman raised several matters, the first of which was contracts. It is an interesting idea, but it bears on another recommendation of Lord Justice Woolf—sentence planning. The right hon. Gentleman will know that prisoners in young offenders' institutions and life


sentence prisoners now have their sentences planned for them. That may be the most positive way in which to proceed.
The right hon. Gentleman urged me to introduce other changes very quickly. The points that have been made to me by the staff side and by the prison officers whom I met this morning were for a measured programme of reform. They made that point repeatedly. Much is happening in the prison service. Already major reforms are in hand, and I have added some more today. Those people stressed to me the importance of absorbing them and making sure that they work effectively.
As for the certificated level of prisoners in an establishment, we are moving to a situation—we are not yet there—in which overcrowding will come to an end. Over the next two or three years, the increase in places will be 6,000 or 7,000, and that will increase the availability of places to more than 50,000. The prison population this day is just below 45,000. So we are moving towards circumstances in which the supply of prison places will exceed the likely prison population. Of course, that does not mean that overcrowding will be eliminated in all prisons; some local prisons will still have problems. We shall have to work on that, which is why we want the rolling programme in order to end overcrowding.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about good will. I accept entirely that the good will of the staff is needed, and I pay tribute to those I met when visiting prisons. They are dedicated people who are conscious that their job is not only to run secure establishments but to help the prisoners in those establishments. I do not believe that that good will will be sacrificed as a result of the proposal to privatise some types of prisons, because privatised prisons operate satisfactorily in other parts of the world. I do not believe that privatisation will bear on that aspect.
The right hon. Gentleman repeated a point that has been made before—that we have a tendency to lock up more people in this country and that, by some measurements, we have a higher prison population. I asked the statisticians in the Home Office to prepare some papers on those figures.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: To change them.

Mr. Baker: It is of no particular advantage to me to have them changed. As always, I am searching for truth. The chief statistician at the Home Office has done some work on the measurement of the prison population, not only in relation to the 100,000 figure of population, but in relation to the level of crime. On that basis, we do not emerge as the country that has a tendency to lock up rnore people.
The Woolf report points the way to a better and more positive system of prison regimes in which we can look forward to the possibility of more prisoners leaving prison in a better condition—or at least in no worse a condition—than when they entered.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no possible justification for the savage violence and wanton destruction witnessed at Strangeways last April? Will he confirm that the ring-leaders will be prosecuted with the full vigour of the law? Does he also agree that, far from the Government's doing nothing, their prison building programme and the measures already contained in the Criminal Justice Bill

provide the platform from which Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations for the future of our prison regime can be realised?

Mr. Baker: I echo exactly what my hon. Friend said. The actions that we saw at Strangeways—the defiance, the vandalism and the orgy of destruction—are quite unacceptable. As I said, about 183 prisoners are awaiting charges or have been convicted. Some of them face charges in connection with the most serious offences, including murder and riot. I cannot comment further, because those cases are sub judice, but the action put in hand by my predecessor will ensure that such incidents will not happen again.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Let me express my appreciation of the enormously authoritative and extensive work of Lord Justice Woolf and gratitude that the Home Secretary has seen fit to move rapidly on the specific matters on which he could move rapidly. Why has not the Home Secretary commented on what may be thought to be the central thesis of Lord Justice Woolfs report, which is that there has been a damaging failure of communication among all the agencies in the criminal justice system and that that underlay the appalling episodes that gave rise to the inquiry? I accept that we need time to consider the structural recommendations made by Lord Justice Woolf, but does the Home Secretary recognise that those recommendations are undoubtedly the most important for the future of prison reform?

Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on the Woolf report. There is already considerable co-ordination between the various component parts of the criminal justice system, and conferences are constantly under way to bring the various parts together. Of course, in preparing the White Paper, I shall look carefully at that point, which is the first in the recommendations.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a wide and warm welcome for the recommendations that he has decided to accept, and for his announcement today? Does he agree that it will be necessary to consider with immense care the details of a report which contains 600 pages? There will be a great welcome for his proposal to publish a White Paper, but does he agree that it should consider both the structure of the prison service and the purpose of imprisonment?

Mr. Baker: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The wide-ranging nature of the report, which contains more than 200 proposals and 12 recommendations, goes to the very heart of the structure of the prison service and the penal system. I agree entirely that the White Paper must address the structure of the prison service and its management as well as the regimes within prisons. It provides a major opportunity to set out and chart the course of developments for the rest of this century and, indeed, beyond.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The appreciation of the House is clearly due to Lord Justice Woolf and to Stephen Tumim. What assessment has the Home Secretary himself made, in terms of what happened at Strangeways, of the effect of the wholly inappropriate accommodation there on people who are mentally ill and


certifiably so? How many such people were there last April and how many are now accommodated in other prisons due to the lack of other more suitable accommodation? Will the right hon. Gentleman also now urgently reconsider the Government's refusal to recompense the Greater Manchester police force for the full costs of its involvement in the Strangeways disaster?

Mr. Baker: On overcrowding, the report makes it clear that Strangeways prison was seriously overcrowded at the time of the riot; I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to part I, which deals with that. He asked where prisoners who were not held in prisons were being held.

Mr. Morris: The mentally ill?

Mr. Baker: On the mentally ill, I shall have to write to the right hon. Gentleman.
On the question of overcrowding generally, as a result of the riot, Strangeways will not be able to receive any more prisoners for some time, but K wing has been reopened and was re-occupied in December. That now holds about 190 prisoners and, in mid-May, it is planned to reopen G, H and I wings with integral sanitation. That will bring the certificated normal accommodation up to about 325 places. That will considerably relieve overcrowding, although I am disappointed to tell the House that some prisoners are still being held in police cells. I look upon that as unsatisfactory, even though the figure is well down.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about resources for the Greater Manchester police authority. Payments have been made in respect of some of the special costs involved, including the use of helicopters and the casualty information service that the authority maintained, but the main cost that the authority bore was that of keeping people in police cells. Payments have been made to Manchester police authority in respect of that.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that everyone concerned with the penal system will think this an excellent report and will welcome his commitment not to leave it on the shelf, and especially his realisation that all who work for containment and rehabilitation in the prison service will be able to achieve their tasks only if their work is undertaken in a humane and civilised environment?

Mr. Baker: I accept entirely what my hon. and learned Friend says. The punishment for a prisoner is the deprivation of his liberty. One does not have to add to that circumstances that may lead to degradation or humiliation, which may have the reverse effect of what is required. The philosophy behind the report and behind the thrust of the Government's reforms of prison management is to provide a positive regime for prisoners and ensure that they are involved in education and training. That must be done against the background described by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Robert Litherland: The Home Secretary referred to "dedicated" prison staff. Does he agree that it would be outrageous to discipline any member of the Strangeways prison staff who was thrown into a situation last April that was not of his own making, when the real culprits of the piece were the Home Office in

general and Mr. Emes especially, who was then the director-general of the prison service, and who overruled the governor's decision when the prison could have been taken the second day, thus saving a lot of misery and a lot of money?

Mr. Baker: When he reads the report, the hon. Gentleman will see that the incident is described in considerable detail, including the events leading up to the riot on 1 April, and the events of I and 2 April and the subsequent days. Although it is clear that the governor thought that there should be an intervention when the deputy director-general thought that there should not, Lord Justice Woolf considers that the plan to intervene should have been allowed to proceed. However, his report states specifically that there would have been a serious risk of injury, if not of death, to the members of staff involved, and he explains the reasons why the deputy director-general came to the view that he did.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point about disciplinary action, I must advise him that there is no recommendation in the report for disciplinary action against individuals. There may have been errors in what was said or not said or in what was not done, but there is no case for taking disciplinary action.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House welcomes his statement that slopping out is to end by the end of 1994, which is two years earlier than was recommended by Lord Justice Woolf, and carries into effect the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee? I am sure that all hon. Members will be pleased with that. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to improve the command centre in London, and what additional training will be given in riot and restraint procedures?

Mr. Baker: The immediate reaction to the report was to improve procedures in the prison service to ensure that, if such an incident or anything similar were to happen again, the management procedures would work more effectively. The incident room in London has been improved and enhanced. The line of command and responsibility has been clearly laid down. In any similar incidents in the future, the governor will clearly be in charge, and his decision could be overridden only by resort to Ministers.
On my hon. Friend's question about control and restraint procedures, such procedures have been developed for about three years now by the prison servive and have been extended. As a result of recent changes, more riot control equipment has been made available. I want more prison officers trained in such techniques.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Is the Home Secretary aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and I visited Strangeways prison in January during the Christmas recess? We pay tribute to the staff for coping with all the rebuilding work while trying to run a prison. The right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the valour of the prison staff during the riot meets with great approval from the general public. I hope that in due course the Home Secretary will be able to mark their courage in some way, as we do when members of the police and fire services carry out acts of courage.
Will the Home Secretary apply himself to the issue of media coverage and the occasional sensationalism of the


television and newspapers? Some of us feel that, as a result of such coverage, some of the prisoners were wallowing in the media spotlight. Will the Home Secretary take a fresh look at that in due course?

Mr. Baker: I do not want to be tempted down the road of censorship, because it would be exceptionally difficult to control the media in such a situation—and, where an event is so visual and obvious, it would not be appropriate. On reflection, I believe that the very fact that it was such a dramatic riot and that it was seen in other prisons encouraged some of the disturbances a week later.
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman said about the staff whom he met at Christmas. They will read his comments in Hansard when it is published, but I pay tribute to them, too. Prison officers are very proud of their work and the more recognition that is paid to them for it, the better—and that is what the hon. Gentleman has done today.

Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in his forthcoming White Paper the fact that drug misuse in prisons can make the control of prisons difficult? He might even consider introducing the regular screening of prisoners, as happens in other countries.

Mr. Baker: The Woolf report deals with the management of drug abusers in prison, covering those who are drug-dependent when they enter prison and the way in which they should be handled, and the accusations that have been made about the illicit use of drugs in prisons. I agree with my hon. Friend that the recommendations of the Woolf report on that matter are important. However, it is a question not only of drug abuse, but of alcohol abuse. The therapy that is now available for dealing with both should be made available to prisoners who are dependent on those narcotics.

Mr. Terry Fields: In his quest for truth and honesty, does the Secretary of State agree that the society that has been created by this Government—of poverty, unemployment, despair and homelessness—contributed greatly to the crime figures in this country?

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: That did not cause prisoners to climb on the roof.

Mr. Fields: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to intervene—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the mutterings from Conservative Members.
Does the Home Secretary further agree that overcrowding dehumanises prisoners and demoralises the prison officers? The Home Secretary used to be the Secretary of State for the Environment, so on another point, has he cast his mind to what he will do with the 14 million poll tax non-payers when they are fined? Will he find places for them?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is wide of the statement.

Mr. Baker: In replying to a rambling diatribe, I advise the hon. Gentleman simply that, since 1979, this Government have devoted more resources to the prison service than any Government in the history of the British penal system.

Mr. Tony Favell: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) just said, may I advise my right hon. Friend that my experience as a lawyer is that many people end up in prison because they are neither equipped for nor wish to work? In the present circumstances, my right hon. Friend's proposal that prisoners should train and work while in gaol is a first-class proposal. Does he agree that the devil soon finds a use for idle hands?

Mr. Baker: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Prison regimes should be positive. I have already said that the number of educational hours and the hours spent in training and in workshops should be increased so that prisoners can acquire skills that they can use so that they do not resume their life of crime, but can find a positive job when they leave prison.

Mr. David Alton: While welcoming Lord Justice Woolf's report, what evidence does the Home Secretary have about health and hygiene and especially about the spread of HIV and hepatitis in prisons? Does he agree that we need an intensive health care programme in prisons? Where immunisation is available, as it is for hepatitis, does he agree that it should be extended immediately to all prisoners who wish it?

Mr. Baker: There is a section in chapter 12 of the Woolf report on the management of HIV, and of AIDS where HIV has developed into AIDS. Certain recommendations are made in paragraph 12·372, to which I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention.

Mr. David Sumberg: May I join the tributes to the prison staff who faced a dangerous situation with great courage? Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that, despite all the problems, not a single prisoner escaped from Strangeways during the riots, which was a matter of some concern to my constituents who live nearby? While on the subject of public safety, will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to ensure that prisoners are removed from police cells as quickly as possible? There is public concern in the north-west on that issue.

Mr. Baker: I agree entirely. No one wants to see in prison cells people who are on remand. It is a totally unsatisfactory practice, and we are doing all we can to reduce its incidence. The highest number of remand prisoners was just over 1,100. This morning there were about 650, mainly in the north-west. Some of the pressure will be relieved when the new Strangeways wings come into operation in mid-May.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As my right hon. Friend knows, my constituency of Littleborough and Saddleworth, on the outskirts of Oldham and Rochdale, is within the Manchester police area. Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents never, never want to see a spectacle such as we witnessed for 25 days at Strangeways prison? The mobility of local businesses and residents was disrupted, and parts of Manchester were turned into no-go areas.
My constituents will be pleased with the Woolf report's recommendations concerning the relaxation of conditions in prisons, and most of them will be delighted at the creation of the new criminal offence of prison mutiny, for which the maximum sentence will be 10 years'
imprisonment. I understand that every prisoner, on being taken into gaol, will be informed of that offence and that sentence.

Mr. Baker: I am sure that the new offence will be well known throughout the prison system, and we shall make sure that prisoners know about it. I understand entirely the strong revulsion expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents at the events that we witnessed last April. As I said in my statement, such events are unacceptable, and we must ensure that they will not occur again.

Mr. William McKelvey: I, too, congratulate the Home Secretary on the speed with which he has adopted some of the recommendations of the Woolf report—especially those concerning changes with regard to slopping out. Will the White Paper refer to after-care for prisoners? Is any consideration being given to the granting of some money to the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders? The Scottish association tells me that, at present, it has a very large overdraft. After-care for prisoners is extremely important if we are to stop recidivism.

Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about my statement. I shall certainly consider the point that he has made.

Sir William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his report and on his tribute to prison officers? The officers at Brixton prison, which is in my constituency, certainly merit that tribute. Does my right hon. Friend know that a number of juveniles who are in Brixton on remand—I am thinking especially of those in L wing, perhaps remanded for medical reports—find themselves in the most forbidding circumstances? As my right hon. Friend is aware, such circumstances have resulted in suicides. When will he be able to stop this practice?

Mr. Baker: As I said, I regard the practice as unacceptable. I have issued a Green Paper—a consultation document—on the steps that are needed, and I hope to receive representations shortly. Extra resources will have to be provided for secure lock-up accommodation—accommodation not in prisons—for juveniles. I agree entirely that people under 17 awaiting trial on very serious charges—youngsters who are not released on bail—should not be held in prison.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Why does it take a riot to produce reforms of this sort with this degree of urgency? The Home Office must have been out of touch for a considerable time not to have produced the programme that the Home Secretary has now announced. That programme is clearly a consequence of the serious riot.
Does the Home Secretary agree that pettifogging bureaucratic limitations are still being imposed on prisoners? For example, a family who had travelled a long way were turned away because they did not have the right visiting card. The attitude adopted was that the family were at fault. That cannot be helpful. Then there is the case of the prisoner who was forbidden to write a letter in

braille to a blind relative. If the new regime that the Home Secretary has announced is to mean anything, such frustrations must be eradicated.

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will pass me details of the second case to which he referred, I shall have it looked into. It is not the function of prison governors to introduce pettifogging restrictions. I have emphasised today the importance of prison visits.
The hon. Gentleman says that we are merely responding to the riots. In fact, for a number of years the Government have had in hand measures of fundamental prison reform. When we came to office, the date for the ending of slopping out that we inherited was well into the 21st century. We have provided substantial resources for the prison service, including funds for the largest building programme in prison history. I have been able to anounce today the provision of £36 million of extra money—£18 million of new money—and the ending of slopping out in September 1994.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will my right hon. Friend accept again the congratulations of Conservative Members on these measures, which are extremely welcome? A number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the problem of overcrowding. As a Birmingham Member, I am particularly anxious about Winson Green. Will my right hon. Friend undertake, in the White Paper, to address this problem once again?

Mr. Baker: I certainly give that undertaking. It is a very important matter. One point that the report brings out concerns the problem of overcrowding in Strangeways in the early part of last year. It was a very overcrowded prison. It is now very unusual, as I go round prisons, to find a cell with three prisoners. Some still have three prisoners, but not many. There are cells with two prisoners. Some prisoners prefer to share, and ask for double accommodation. However, we should provide the possibility for all those wishing to have single cells to have them. That is our objective.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Home Secretary inject a little honesty into his statement? Everybody outside this place knows that he is making these concessions because of the Strangeways riot last year and one or two other goal riots. The truth is that, when the Tory party was elected, there were three prisoners in every cell. Now, there are three on nearly every roof each summer. The Tory party was elected to set the people free, but the prisoners got out.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has not often turned his capacious mind to the question of penal reform. If he had—[HON. MEMBERS:"He has been to prison.") Really? That is most interesting.

Mr. Skinner: I was innocent.

Mr. Baker: Innocent? Well, I am sure. that the process did the hon. Gentleman a great deal of good. If the hon. Gentleman follows these matters, he will know that we have introduced a series of prison reforms over the past four or five years. If he would like copies of all the documents that have been produced by myself and my predecessors, I shall be happy to send them to him. Then he will be able to recognise the true reforming nature of this Government when it comes to prisons.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that hardly anyone who has visited a prison does not welcome his positive reaction to this report? Even with the placement of long-term prisoners outside local prisons, and even with the improvements being made by the Criminal Justice Bill, there must still be some qualms about the ability to meet the requirements regarding certificated normal accommodation in a prison such as Lewes, where there will still be many remand prisoners because the courts send them there. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will liaise most carefully with the Law Officers, with a view to seeing that the law, as administered by the courts, matches his reforming zeal?

Mr. Baker: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend said. Much depends on the sentencing policy followed by judges and magistrates. The Criminal Justice Bill, which we shall be considering in a few minutes, makes major changes in sentencing policy. The main purpose is to ensure that people who are in prison for serious offences are likely to stay there longer. By the same token, those convicted of less serious charges should not go to gaol at all. That is the whole purpose of the bill, and it will have particular relevance for the populations in local gaols like Lewes.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, whenever there is a problem in prisons, one of the first things to disappear is the opportunity to work or to take advantage of education? When I last visited Durham prison, where one still sees dehumanising conditions, virtually no education or work was being undertaken by the male prisoners. However, I was impressed by the new work regime in which female prisoners were involved. They wanted a commitment that that could be extended to other prisons. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that, in moving to the elimination, by 1994, of the appalling practice of slopping out, the Government will not jeopardise the other aim of enabling prisoners to have a fruitful work regime and other educational opportunities?

Mr. Baker: The practice of slopping out is one of the biggest disruptions to the prison day. It takes half an hour per time, and if prisoners slop out four times a day, it completely destroys the planning of a sensible prison day to include visits to workshops and education facilities. Ending slopping out is important for a whole series of reasons. As to education, I remind the hon. Lady that we have extended considerably the amount of time available for education from some 5 million to nearly 8 million hours a year.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Prisoners get only three hours a day.

Mr. Baker: It depends on which prison one goes to. A fortnight ago, I was in a prison that had completely new facilities in the education wing. We are investing heavily in education—[Interruption.] The Opposition are in a dilemma. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If they are not, I shall make sure that they find themselves in one. We are engaged on a major programme of reform, and we are providing the resources for it.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I welcome my right hon. Friend's positive response. Did the report say anything about more sentence planning for adults as well as young offenders? Is there not greater scope, in the

judicial system, for judges who send people to prison to ensure that the regime to which they send them is appropriate to their needs?

Mr. Baker: I am very sympathetic to the recommendations of Woolf on sentence planning. This already operates in institutions that deal with young offenders up to the age of 21 or 22 and for those who have life sentences. Sentence planning is a sensible idea, because a prisoner can be given a map of what is available to him and what can be offered to him while he is in prison. That is an attractive idea.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The humane measures that my right hon. Friend has announced will be greatly welcomed the other side of the balance to the toughening up of the parole system that was announced earlier. They are also essentially an extension of the prison building programme that he and his predecessors have undertaken. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when reforms are introduced, prisoners are so organised that they will respect them, rather than, as happened in Strangeways, destroying some of the better measures that had been introduced there before the riots? In the category C prison in my constituency, Send, these reforms will be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to bring forward the White Paper quickly so that we can have the benefits of what is proposed this afternoon as soon as possible?

Mr. Baker: I shall try to do it before the end of the year. I am glad that my hon. Friend presses me in that way. I visited the prison in his constituency, Send, which has a positive regime, set in place by the prison officers and the governors. It is a small but effective prison. I accept my hon. Friend's point about the importance of a positive regime. That lies at the heart of any reform of the penal system.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: May we be quite clear on one point? The Opposition are congratulating everyone associated with the Woolf report, not the Home Secretary. Is he aware that these proposals are the most comprehensive for penal reform this century? It is not clear from his remarks that he is aware of that. Does he not understand that the report is a clear and damning condemnation of the direction of Government policy over the past 12 years? It is no good throwing money at the prison building programme and introduced privatisation in prisons, when the Government's philosophy on penal policy is so wrong. If the Home Secretary does not realise that, he has not been honest with the House.
Can we push the right hon. Gentleman on this? Is the Home Secretary clearly accepting the philosophy of Woolf? We demand to know that. The more we push the Home Secretary, the more we find no categorical commitment to that philosophy. There have been opportunities—as there were when we debated the Criminal Justice Bill last Wednesday—for the Government to accept measures to reduce the number of people in prison. The Government rejected moves to take fine defaulters and the mentally ill out of prison. Is it not about time that the Home Secretary realised that this is his opportunity to make or break his reputation as a Home Secretary?

Mr. Baker: What the hon. Gentleman said about fine defaulting is wrong. Woolf makes positive recommendations on that. One consequence of the Criminal Justice Bill—the unit fine system, which is the method of collection


through attachment either of earnings or income support—is that it will ensure that in future there will be much less fine defaulting. The hon. Gentleman should screw up a little generosity, as some of his hon. Friends have, and recognise what we have done. They are kind-hearted people, and I hope that he can be as kind-hearted.

Ravenscraig Steelworks

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
British Steel's decision, announced last Friday 22 February, to reduce Ravenscraig steelworks to single furnace working.
The matter is specific, in that it relates to the closure of the blast furnace and steel-making capacity, on which undertakings were given by British Steel and announced by the responsible Ministers in both Houses of Parliament at the time of privatisation of British Steel in 1988. Those undertakings, relating to the continued operation of the works and to the offer for sale of the steel-making facilities in the works should British Steel no longer require them, have not been fulfilled, and they must be.
The matter is important because the closure will mean the loss of 1 million tonnes of steel-making capacity, which British Steel cannot do without, given the continuing trade deficit which today's figures have shown extending further. It will reduce Ravenscraig to a level of working from which it will be difficult to recover, greatly increasing the likelihood of an early cessation of steel making in Scotland.
Locally, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), it will bring to almost 3,000 the total of steel job losses this year, with probably over 5,000 further job losses among suppliers, contractors and local businesses. It will be a shattering blow to employment in Lanarkshire and Scotland generally, for which the Government have made no preparations.
Finally, the matter is urgent because the decision has immediate operational implications at the plant for closing down a blast furnace, which will be irreversible.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
British Steel's decision, announced last Friday 22 February, to reduce Ravenscraig steelworks to single furnace working".
I listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said about this matter and the impact that it will have on his constituents. As he knows, I have to decide whether to give it precedence over the business of the House set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that the matter that he has raised does not meet the criteria of Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Tin Mining (Cornwall)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the withdrawal of Government support for Carnon Consolidated.
The Government are ending their financial support to Cornwall's last tin mines, Wheal Jane and South Crofty, which will mean 415 redundancies and the end of tin mining in Cornwall. The decision of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—it is his personal decision—to cut the lifeline to the tin mines is appalling. It comes as a tragic blow to all those concerned about the mines, and in particular to those who will lose their jobs.
The Government had promised a further £4 million loan to the mines, but suddenly broke the commitment unexpectedly late last Friday. As they had invested £23 million in the mines so far, to pull out now just to save £4 million is senseless and, considering the social security benefits and redundancy payments that will flow from this, it is hard to see any logic in it.
Tin is at its lowest price ever, and the position can only improve. As a result of the Secretary of State's decision, the mines will not be given a chance. Wheal Jane will be flooded, which will make it unopenable, and South Crofty will go on a care and maintenance basis, which will leave none of the existing employees with an outlook for secure employment. Those job losses are especially tragic because they are unnecessary and come at a time when job prospects in Cornwall are extremely bad. It is a sad day for those who will be made redundant, and my sympathy goes to them and their families.
The Government have behaved disgracefully and irresponsibly. For more than a year, they have engaged in discussions with the management of the mines about how to keep the mines open. Suddenly and unexpectedly to withdraw support, late on a Friday afternoon when no representations could be made and without notice, can be described only as disgusting. The Government deserve to be held in contempt. They should have to come to the House to explain their action. I would have expected them to make a statement, but as they will not do so, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will bring them to the Dispatch Box to justify their decision.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the withdrawal of Government support for Carnon Consolidated.
Again, I regret that I must give the hon. Member the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). I regret that the matter does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, so I cannot submit his application to the House. In the light of what he said, I hope that he will have other opportunities to bring the matter before the House.

War Aims

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the clarification of war aims in the Gulf.
This is not a posturing effort. With the best will in the world, a statement in the House is insufficient. If the House is to do its job, it should have a three-hour debate on such a matter.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) asked specifically about war aims on the Secretary of State's statement, she was told that there was no change in the position, that the question had been answered four times and that she had better look at the United Nations resolutions. There is considerable confusion, even on the basis of the answers of the Secretary of State for Defence. I adduce for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, just four succinct points.
First, the United States military commanders are saying that it is essential to go into Iraq. Whatever the merits of such a policy, it is not consistent with the Egyptian or Arab coalition members' interpretation of United Nations resolutions. Secondly, when my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) suggested that Saddam Hussein had to be brought to justice, the Secretary of State for Defence assented. On several occasions, it was stated that all individuals had to be held responsible for their actions. In short, the Commons should debate the issues raised by John and Ann Tusa in their article on war crimes in The Times. It opens up Pandora's box.
Thirdly, when the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said that Kuwait had to be liberated, the reply was that Western troops might well be involved in keeping Kuwait liberated. That goes against the professed views of Iran and the whole background of peace and stability being restored to the area. The House would want to know how, especially in terms of the photochemical smog.
Finally, Perez de Cuellar described the Russian peace proposals as a unique opportunity. It looks to some of us as though the Russian peace proposals have been scuppered, as the Peruvian peace proposals were scuppered by the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands war. The Secretary of State for Defence said that the Russians had been betrayed in good faith. This is a matter of timing that should be explained. The real nub of the matter is that some of us fear that our country is being sucked into a war near Greater Baghdad.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the war aims of the coalition in the Gulf.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision to the House without giving any reasons. I have listened to what he said, but I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House because it does not meet the criteria of the order.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS

That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

FOOD ASSISTANCE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(2) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).

That European Community Document No. 10880/90, relating to the extension of food assistance to the Soviet Union, Romania and Bulgaria, and a credit facility to the Soviet Union, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Chapman.]

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(2) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).

That European Community Document No. 4120/91, relating to revision of the financial perspective to finance technical assistance for the Soviet Union, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[ Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill

Not amended, (in the Committee) and as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 26

THE PAROLE BOARD

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 19, line 30 at end insert—

'(6A) In subsection (6) above the reference to protecting the public from serious harm from offenders shall be construed, in relation to offenders convicted of violent or sexual offences (within the meaning of Part I of this Act), as a reference to protecting members of the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, occasioned by further such offences committed by such offenders.'.—[Mrs. Rumbold.]

Clause 27

DUTY TO RELEASE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM PRISONERS

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 19, line 42 leave out 'person' and insert 'short-term or long-term prisoner'.
This is a technical amendment to correct an error in the Bill. It would leave out "person" and insert "short-term or long-term prisoner". As the Bill is drafted, the clause would apply to all prisoners released on licence, which it cannot do. It can apply only to those serving determinate sentences—not to life sentence prisoners who have indeterminate sentences. Therefore, it makes no sense to talk of the three-quarters point for those people. The amendment corrects the anomaly by ensuring that clause 27(3) applies only to short-term and long-term prisoners.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39

ALTERATION BY ORDER OF RELEVANT PROPORTIONS OF SENTENCES

Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 25, line 24 after 'provide', insert—
'(a) that the references in section 27(5) above to four years shall be construed as references to such other period as may be specified in the order;
(b)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 20.

Mrs. Rumbold: These amendments give effect to an undertaking which we gave in Committee when we discussed clause 27. We were concerned about the threshold between the automatic and discretionary release scheme which is set at four years in the Bill by way of the definitions of long and short-term sentences. Some of my hon. Friends expressed concern about the four-year period. They were worried that some of the offences


committed by people serving shorter periods might require us to have another look at this clause. In Committee we undertook to consider an amendment which would enable the Home Secretary to take a power to vary the threshold.
That threshold could be varied upwards or downwards in the light of the new scheme, but I do not anticipate that that will be necessary in the foreseeable future. My hon. Friends were right to ensure that we had the advantage of retaining flexibility when drawing up the new arrangments. The amendments will allow an adjustment in the important threshold if Parliament believes that that is necessary, and transitional arrangements could be made were Parliament of that mind.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: We are worried about Government amendment No. 19, although we have no quarrel with Government amendment No. 20.
Those of us who served on the Committee will remember that the amendments were a concession to the right of the Conservative party who succeeded in what can only be described as a mini-coup.
Section 27 is the key section in implementing the proposals for parole. One of the most positive features is that parole will be automatic for those serving less than four years, and that the discretionary scheme will apply only to those serving four years and more.
In Committee, we welcomed those parole proposals, although we tabled an amendment to ensure that those subject exactly to four years automatically gained parole. Our amendments were in line with what the Carlisle committee decided after much thought.
The Carlisle committee report is of historic importance, and it was considered immediately prior to our discussions on the Bill. We believe that it is crazy, having established a powerful committee to look at a particular problem, which considered that problem in great detail and with much expertise, for the Government then to muck around with the detail of that committee's recommendations.
The thrust of the Carlisle report will be ruined if we start to tinker with the four-year rule. I hope that the Government will not bend any further. We do not like amendment No. 19, and we should like them to have second thoughts about it. It would be far more sensible to keep to the Carlisle recommendations.
As ever, we are the reasonable Opposition—we oppose the amendments not on ideological grounds, but because the Carlisle committee issued a good report. If one tries to mix and match that report with other things, its overall effect will be spoiled.
The Carlisle committee stated:
Our conclusion is that a four year sentence provides the most sensible threshold beyond which a selective parole system should operate … We have come to the conclusion that the two or three year threshold that many have suggested would be too low … First, for a selective scheme to be credible there must be sufficient time for new considerations to emerge … The shorter the period between sentence and review the more likely it is that the parole decision will be based on no more material than that available to the judge. Second, if the selection process is to be thorough and fair yet not excessively cumbersome and costly the number of cases must be kept to manageable proportions.
We do not want to delay proceedings on this, and we shall not seek to divide the House, but we are unhappy that the amendments could give the Government the ability to tinker with the recommendations of an extremely good report.

Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for tabling the amendments. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) got his facts right when he described me as on the right of the party.
I do not agree with what the hon. Member for Huddersfield said about has interpretations of the Carlisle recommendations. I support the amendments because the Bill is introducing something that is entirely new—an automatic, conditional release system. We hope that the courts will use that system in line with a greater certainty on sentencing. We do not know whether four years is the right cut-off point; only experience will show what works in practice.
It would be a mistake not to allow my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to vary the four-year rule either upwards or downwards. I would have great doubts about him varying that rule upwards, although there may be a case for varying it downwards. It would be a mistake to enact the Bill without that power to vary. On the basis of that consideration, I welcome the amendments, which I hope the House will support.

Mrs. Rumbold: It is clear that the Government regard the Carlisle recommendation of the four-year threshold as the right one. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), supported in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) cited some significant figures that made the Government think that it would be right to include an order-making power that could be brought into play in the light of experience in those circumstances where we felt it would be better to have a threshold that was either higher or lower than the four years. For that reason, the Government tabled the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 25, line 26, leave out 'specified in the order' and insert
'so specified.
(1A) An order under this section may make such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient in connection with any provision made by the order.'—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 43

NOTICES OF TRANSFER IN CERTAIN CASES INVOLVING CHILDREN

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 27, line 7, after 'alleged', insert '(i)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 109, 113 and 112.

Mr. Patten: The amendments are a direct result of some good debates in Committee on this important issue. They are concerned with trying to help child witnesses in criminal proceedings in two ways—first, through the ability to bypass committal proceedings as set out in clause 43 and, secondly, by placing a bar on personal cross-examination of witnesses by the accused.
I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) argued about this specific issue in Committee, although much of the argument was carried by those who are absent this afternoon, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)—I believe in


being kind to Welsh nationalists—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who is about her business in another part of the country, and that leading member of the Trappist tendency, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). That hon. Lady pressed the argument effectively, and I pay tribute to all that she did.
I hope that I can commend the amendments with that brief explanation. They will do a great deal to help child witnesses in terms of bypassing committal and avoiding cross-examination by the accused.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I hesitate to intervene in these proceedings as a Member representing Scotland, but I have a couple of questions about the amendments.
Has the Minister had any discussions with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office on the implementation of such measures in Scotland? I speak as someone who has sought to change the law of Scotland on child witnesses. I did so last year during our deliberations on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful. The amendments will determine the status of children and the protection given to them in what can be the most harrowing of circumstances. It is unfortunate that English legislation is well in advance of developments in Scottish legislation. On behalf of the Scottish children caught up in these dreadful circumstances, I must express my deep regret about that.
Two cases pending in Scotland involve the most harrowing instances of sexual abuse against a number of young children, some of whom were only two or three years old when the horrible incidents took place. Nevertheless, children in Scotland caught up in these dismal circumstances will be denied the protection rightly afforded to English children in these most welcome measures. It is a disgrace that identical legislation for Scotland has not been introduced. What discussions have taken place between the Home Office and the Scottish Office on bringing about these welcome changes in Scottish legislation?

Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will know of my long-standing interest in this matter, and particularly of my association with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has been concerned about the way in which children have been subjected to the process of appearing in court proceedings. I warmly welcome the clauses in the Bill which, to a large extent, implement the recommendations of the Pigot report. There was a gap in the law with respect to expediting proceedings involving witnesses.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy with which he received me and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who advised me today that she was unwell and could not be with us. Together with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), we discussed these matters, and the Government amendments meet our anxieties.
The Minister will have noticed amendments Nos. 98 and 99 on the Order Paper; perhaps he will confirm that the Government amendments deal with the points contained in those amendments—and are no doubt better drafted than ours. If they do, I shall not move amendments

Nos. 98 or 99; of course, if the Opposition Members whose names those amendments also bear wish to speak to them, that will be up to them.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for accepting the recommendations made to him on this matter.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister say a word about some other matters touched on in the Pigot report? For instance, should there not be a code of practice governing the giving of evidence by children? Do the Government believe it possible to introduce measures to prevent unnecessary delays in court cases that involve this sort of children's evidence?

Mr. John Patten: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the generality of the Pigot committee's recommendations when he speaks of codes of practice, or is he referring specifically to speeding up court hearings?

Mr. Maclennan: I am referring only to the giving of evidence by children.
Lastly, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has also mentioned the need to ensure that no distinction will be made between children who have suffered abuse and children who have witnessed serious abuse and violence—but I suspect that the Government amendments take care of that.

Mr. John Greenway: I too should like to record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I am sure that he will recall that, when we discussed the matter for many hours in Committee, we did not manage to persuade him of the validity of our arguments, but he agreed to reconsider the matter, and that is what he has done. We are most grateful to him. I fervently believe that the law should protect a child witness as much as it protects a child victim. Indeed, it is often difficult to distinguish between them.

Mr. Sheerman: We welcome the amendments. It is a shame that two of the hon. Members who argued most eloquently for the ideas that they incorporate are not here. I understand that they are unavoidably detained in Select Committees. I refer of course to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones).
These are important concessions to the Pigot proposals, extending as they do the protection offered to child victims to child witnesses. This subject constituted the most harmonious part of our proceedings in Committee. All hon. Members in Committee wanted as far as possible to make the process of giving evidence in court humane and sensitively handled. The Opposition are pleased that the amendments have been introduced.

Mr. John Patten: First, I want to answer the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), the first part of whose constituency I can never pronounce. He asked me whether discussions had taken place between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland on these important matters. Of course the two Departments consult on these issues. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish criminal law and criminal code have developed differently from ours, which means that, from time to time, Scottish, English and Welsh law look a little out of kilter. Indeed, my hon. Friends occasionally look with envy at some aspects of the Scottish


criminal code. For instance, children's panels are often urged on us; we are thought to be lagging behind in that respect, although we are now trying to achieve the same ends in a different way.
I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, if necessary, he and the hon. Gentleman can correspond thereafter.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that the Government amendments adequately cover the possibility of getting around committal, and of not making it possible for children to be cross-examined by those alleged to have assaulted them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), and to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who is not here today but who takes a considerable interest in the subject.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who was not here earlier to hear my lavish compliments about how she broke the Trappist vows of the Whips and occasionally went to the Back Benches in Committee to argue the case for children. Her arguments, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), were powerful. As the House knows, we are a listening Government; we listened and then we tabled the amendments.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. (Mr. Maclennan) asked whether we were going to introduce a code of practice governing children's evidence. We are. We are already negotiating, if that is the right word to use, these issues with members of the academic community: for instance, with Professor Bull, a notable authority in the area; and with Mr. John Spencer—just to show how broad-minded I am in these matters—fellow of Selwyn college, Cambridge, even though he has occasionally criticised me in print. He is also an expert, and I have not taken offence. We are bent on employing him, if he is willing to advise us within the strict terms of the Bill, on how to incorporate a practical measure for children's evidence.
I repeat: we are a listening Government and a broad-minded Government, and on this occasion we are a Government with whom the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was happy to do business on an issue in which party politics played no part. I am happy to pay tribute to him and his colleagues for the part that they played in Committee in dealing with these important matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 109, in page 27, line 8, after 'committed', insert
';or
(ii) to have witnessed the commission of the offence,'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 27, line 9, leave out from 'that' to 'by' and insert ',for the purposes of avoiding any prejudice to the welfare of the child, the case should be taken over and proceeded with without delay'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 111 and 120.

Mr. Patten: The amendments form the second part of the Government's response to the debate in Committee about the need to reduce undue delay in cases involving child witnesses. During our scrutiny of the Pigot clauses,

the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) moved a new clause that formed the basis of much of the debate. Despite my considerable sympathy with his intentions and those of my hon. Friends, I was unable to accept the new clause exactly as it stood, because it imposed a strict timetable in criminal cases which I felt could lead to the guilty walking free if it was not adhered to to the letter. The amendments would not impose a strict timetable, but would, I believe, establish a clear framework for the elimination of unnecessary delays.
Clause 43 already gives the Director of Public Prosecutions power to bypass committal proceedings if he is satisfied that the case should be taken over by the Crown court without delay. Amendments Nos. 110 and 120, however, strengthen that principle by referring explicitly to the welfare of the child, and I think that a number of hon. Members will approve of that. They also impose a clear duty on magistrates courts and the Crown court to consider how best to avoid delay. For the magistrates courts, that means expediting their residual tasks under schedule 5.
The amendments effectively abolish the argument that is sometimes advanced by those involved in the criminal justice system, that they are not responsible for the delay. They are now responsible for minimising it: the amendments bring that into sharp focus. The amendment will, however, allow judges, who have the often difficult task of dealing with children—whether they are victims or witnesses—to tailor any action to the needs of individual cases, balancing the legitimate interests of child welfare with those of natural justice.
The remaining amendment simply corrects a minor drafting error.

Mr. Sheerman: Yet again, we accept and endorse the Government's proposals. As we said in Committee, delay is often an important factor. In Committee on any Criminal Justice Bill, we increasingly realise the need for better co-ordination between the separate parts of the system: Opposition Members want to reform that relationship, and to expedite the processes involved. Justice that takes a long time is justice delayed, and, sometimes, is not justice at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 111, in page 27, line 18, leave out '3 and 4' and insert '2 and 3'.—(Mr. John Patten).

Clause 45

VIDEO RECORDINGS OF TESTIMONY FROM CHILD WITNESSES.

Amendments made: No. 113, in page 30, line 37, after 'alleged', insert '(i)'.

No. 112, in page 30, line 38, after 'committed', insert
'; or
(ii) to have witnessed the commission of the offence;'.—(Mr. John Patten.)

Clause 47

RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN FOR FINANCIAL PENALTIES

Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 31, line 38, at end insert—

'(1A) After subsection (2) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection.

'(2A) In taking the decisions required by subsections (1) and (1A) above, the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, that is to say—
(a) whether the parents have neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person and whether any such neglect has caused or contributed to the commission of the offence.
(b) whether it is desirable that the child or young person himself should assume responsibility for payment of the sum.
(c) the relationship of the child or young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering the sum to be paid by the parent or guardian.
(d) the respective means of the child or young person and the parent or guardian.
as well as to any others which appear to be relevant.'.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 83, in page 32, line 31, at end add—
'(5) No court shall exercise its powers under this section in regard to local authorities, except in those cases where the local authority has been negligent in the conduct of its duties as defined in paragraph 2 of this section or has acted unreasonably, given the circumstances of the case.'.

Mr. Michael: The Minister must answer a simple and basic question: does he, and do the Government, accept that it is wrong to punish the innocent? If he accepts our amendment, he will ensure that no parent who is innocent of any blame, and no social services department that has done its job properly, will be punished or penalised.
Amendment No. 82 proposes that, in deciding whether a parent should be required to pay a fine, the court should have regard to a number of considerations that may be relevant. The first is:
whether the parents have neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person and whether any such neglect has caused or contributed to the commission of the offence.
The second is:
whether it is desirable that the child or young person himself should assume responsibility for payment of the sum.
The third is:
the relationship of the child or young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering the sum to be paid by the parent or guardian.
The fourth is:
the respective means of the child or young person and the parent or guardian".
Any other relevant circumstances should also be taken into account.
That, surely, is an entirely correct and reasonable approach, which has been supported by the Government themselves in Home Office circular to courts No. 3/1983 entitled "Criminal Justice Act 1982: Sanctions Against Parents and Guardians". The 1982 Act stipulated that fines should be paid by parents unless the court considered that that would be unreasonable or the parent could not be found. Paragraph 3 of the circular states:
During the passage of the Bill, considerations which might be relevant to the question of whether it would be unreasonable to order payment by the parent or guardian were discussed. It was suggested, for example, that regard should be had to factors such as whether the parents had neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person or whether any such neglect had caused or contributed, whether directly or indirectly, to the commission of the offence; whether it was desirable that the child or young person himself should assume responsibility for the payment

of the fine, compensation or costs, or for part of it; the relationship between the child or young person and the parent or guardian and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering that the parent … pay the sums".
The Government should surely support the principles contained in the amendment.
In view of the emphasis that the Government have placed on parental responsibilities, it is important for them to state on the face of the Bill that they are willing to protect responsible parents. If they agree that the court should consider the criteria that I have specified, the criteria must be included in the legislation, rather than relegated to a paragraph in a long-forgotten circular of some eight years ago.
In come cases it will be appropriate to oblige parents to pay fines imposed on juvenile offenders, but in many others such a course might be both unreasonable and harmful. In some cases, when a young offender is at odds with his parents, the resentment resulting from the imposition of a fine on the parents—who may already be at the end of their tether, especially when the family is poor—could damage family relationships still further, placing the young person more at risk than ever, and perhaps leading to the commission of further offences.
In some instances, magistrates may consider that, if the fine is to have any value, that will lie in its being paid by the child himself rather than in his parents relieving him of the financial responsibility. I know from my own court experience that that frequently arises. In other cases, the parent may have done all that could reasonably be expected to discipline and control the young person, but without success. All parents will have found occasionally that their best efforts have not succeeded. The Minister may claim to be a perfect parent, but most of us would probably admit to being fallible from time to time.
It is important that the courts should be required to consider those potential pitfalls when deciding whether to impose a fine on the parent of a juvenile offender. The amendment does not, of course, prevent the court from considering any other factors which may be relevant. It does not prevent the court from placing an obligation on a parent if it is right and proper to do so. It does not mitigate parental responsibility, but it protects the innocent parent and ensures that courts take into account circumstances in which placing a burden on parents would be detrimental. The Minister will surely not disagree with that.
When the issue was debated in Committee on 24 January, amendment No. 82 was grouped with others and the Minister did not comment specifically on it. Today, he must comment specifically on its merits, and I hope that he will simply accept it.
6 pm
Amendment No. 83 says:
No court shall exercise its powers under this section in regard to local authorities, except in those cases where the local authority has been negligent in the conduct of its duties as defined in paragraph 2 of this section or has acted unreasonably, given the circumstances of the case.
The amendment limits the circumstances in which a local authority can be required to pay a fine. The clause is far too broad, because it is unreasonable to expect local authorities to pay fines for the offences of juveniles if they and their employees have acted appropriately and professionally. Home Office circular No. 3/1983 is relevant, and the same considerations should apply to local authorities.
The Government recognised that in their White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", which states that the Government will require local authorities to pay financial penalties when juveniles in their care are convicted of offences and
the court is satisfied that the offence followed a failure by the local authority to carry out its duties.
The amendment requires that that statement be included in the Bill, which places no clear statutory obligation on courts to consider whether the local authority has been negligent or unreasonable and to impose a fine only if an authority has been shown to be at fault.
The assumption in clause 47—an assumption that seems to be in the minds of some of the Government's more right-wing Back Benchers—is that local authorities should always be able to prevent offending by juveniles in their care. That shows little awareness of the reality of caring for those young people, many of whom are persistent young offenders who were taken into care because of their parents' inability to exercise due care and control. The damage caused to those young people may work through to absconding and associated offending. The local authority, which was not responsible for the offending, is left to pick up the pieces.
The Government seem to have turned the cause and effect relationship upside down, and instead of recognising that those young people are in care because of their offending are blaming the local authority for it. I hope that the Minister will put that right.
There are dangers if fining local authorities becomes the norm. It could lead to local authorities reducing home leave and family contact with children in care and it could be detrimental to the young person. There may be increased security in children's homes, at the expense of caring and rehabilitative regimes. I hope that the Minister will agree that a failure to rehabilitate young offenders will increase the long-term threat to the public, and that it must be avoided.
Young offenders may find it amusing and gratifying to see their social worker fined for their behaviour. They may be encouraged to feel that they can break the law with impunity.

Mr. John Patten: The Bill does not say that individual social workers will be fined. The local authority will be at risk for not fulfilling its responsibilities.

Mr. Michael: The local authority would not be fined for not fulfilling its responsibilities—that is the whole point of my argument—but the amendment seeks to correct that. If the Minister meant what he just said, he will accept the amendment. The amendment aims to provide for what he just suggested; by accepting it, he will make life a lot easier.
Young offenders may find it amusing and gratifying to see their social worker fined for their behaviour. If local authorities are punished, that pressure will be passed down the line. I am sure that the Minister understands what I mean by that. Having worked with young offenders, I can assure him that such amusement is a real danger. It is important that the Bill be amended to provide what the Minister has just suggested. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the amendment.

Mr. Patten: I did not want to intervene, because the hon. Gentleman speaks from much personal experience, but for once, uncharacteristically, he seemed to be

factually incorrect. He said that individual social workers would be at risk financially; it is important that he should not continue to say that.

Mr. Michael: I take the Minister's point, but he surely understands that, if local authorities, whatever they do and however professional their social workers or correct their systems, are in danger of being forced to pay fines, immense pressure will distort the regime in which social workers work with young people. Young people will rapidly become aware of that and of their ability to play games with their social workers.
The Minister must take that danger seriously. In his first intervention, he suggested that, under the Bill, social services departments would be placed under a burden only if they failed in their duty. We tabled the amendment to correct that. I hope that the Minister, by his intervention, was accepting the amendment. A local authority should be responsible for financial penalties only in specified circumstances when it has acted negligently or unreasonably. That was what the Minister said, that is what I say and that is the purpose of the amendment.
In Committee, the Minister said that there was some protection to local authorities under section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. However, that section is merely on whether it would be unreasonable to fine in the circumstances. Amendment No. 83 goes much further and defines the conduct or misconduct of the local authority as the factor that leads to a fine being imposed.
The amendments are reasonable and fair. They will ensure that innocent parents and effective local authorities will not be in danger of being forced to pay, while allowing a culpable parent or local authority to bear the burden of a fine. How can the Minister possibly refuse that? He almost seemed to concede my point in his intervention, but he must at least assure us that the principles that I have set out will be observed absolutely in the operation of the Bill when it is enacted.

Mr. Terry Dicks: The points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) link with the Home Secretary's statement on the Woolf report. Everyone is talking about parent responsibility, but allowing parents to avoid it. In the statement, all we heard was about the poor life of prisoners. So far as I can remember, no one deigned to mention how victims suffer or to make the obvious point that people are in prison by choice—they choose to go there when they break the law, and we should not be too concerned.
We should take great care about making parents responsible for their children's actions, but the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth seemed to he looking for a way out. If some of the hoax telephone calls of the past week were made by children under the age of 17 or 18, and if their parents knew that their kids had access to the telephone, is the hon. Gentleman really saying that we should not worry? If a child had been involved in making those hoax phone calls, a three-month sentence for him or his parents would not be justified—the minimum sentence should be five years, with deportation for any foreigners.
The essence of the point being made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is that we must look for ways to enable parents to avoid their responsibilities. Would he say that they were not paying


due care and attention if they were watching television while their 12 or 14-year-old was thumping a policeman at a football match? Should we say, "Those parents did not know that their child was at a football match, so we should not worry"? I am glad that we are making parents responsible. Instead of creating loopholes to enable parents to get off, we should tighten them to ensure that they do not.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the clause and support the amendments. I have never been entirely happy with the principle of vicarious criminal liability, which seems to have been embodied in the law for a long time. It does not lead to a need for a court to investigate the degree of parents' criminal liability. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) assumed that parental liability was involved in all circumstances in which a person committed an offence. That should be demonstrated, argued and proved before a court. One of the benefits of amendment No. 82 is that it would make it necessary to argue before a court the extent to which parents should be liable for the misdeeds of their children.
It is clear from the passage read out by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that the Home Office has in mind precisely those considerations which are encapsulated in the amendment. Including them in the Bill would have the virtue of leading to the facts being considered. It may be that that consideration is given, and will be given, in many courts through the presentation of social work reports and so on. If there is a specific requirement along the lines proposed in amendment No. 82, a court will be in no doubt about whether parents are culpable to such an extent that they should be held liable to pay.
Similar considerations apply to amendment No. 83 with regard to the alleged negligence of local authorities. If local authorities are held to be liable, that involvement should be tested. They should not be held to have been negligent without the evidence having been considered by a court. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington assumes that, if the children involved are in care, the local authority is responsible for their misdeeds, but that assumption severes the connection between the offence and the person who committed it. That cannot be in the interest of justice. I hope that the Government will accept these sensible amendments.

Mr. John Patten: I was greatly taken by what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) said about hoax telephone calls by juveniles and adults. The House views with revulsion and distaste the hoax telephone calls to the emergency services in recent days, which in certain circumstances could lead to serious injury or loss of life if the emergency services had been diverted. This is a disgraceful habit in the country at large. It is punishable by imprisonment.
My hon. Friend said that the penalties were not severe enough. He must take credit for bringing to our attention the need to consider this issue. Although I shall not table amendments to the Bill, I shall undertake a review in the Home Office of the penalties that can be imposed on those demented people who make hoax telephone calls about devices, causing chaos not only to the emergency services

but to the travelling public. Under the present law, the courts are stamping down hard on that behaviour, and I hope that the House welcomes that action. Perhaps we should arm the courts with tougher measures to deal with such people.
6.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made another important point when he talked about the importance of parental responsibility. I believe that my Conservative colleagues would respectfully agree to disagree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about vicarious penalties. We are talking about those who have charge of children and young people. Whether they are parents, step-parents, grandparents or local authorities, they should bear their share of the responsibility by paying fines if the children involved cannot do so.
Alas, there is no clearer sign of the division between Conservative Members and the Opposition than the long debates in Committee on these issues. We had to agree to differ. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland could not be a member of the Committee. We genuinely missed him, although we have heard on Report some "footsteps" of what might have been a lengthier speech in Committee. We shall have to agree to differ, because the amendments dilute the principle of parental responsibility on which the Government place great weight.

Mr. Maclennan: Anyone listening to the right hon. Gentleman or reading his speech later may be forgiven for overlooking the fact that he and the Government have diluted the principle of parental responsibility by changing the 1933 Act. It is a question not whether one dilutes the principle but whether one should define the circumstances of the dilution, which is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten three fundamental limbs of the Bill: first, that we expect parents to be in court when their children are tried; secondly, that we expect parents, guardians and social services departments to pay the fines; and, thirdly, that we want the courts to have a considerably enhanced power to bind over parents to use their best endeavours to prevent children offending. If that is dilution, I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristic misuse of language.
In all cases, before a parent could be ordered to pay a fine, the court would have to think about several factors, such as whether the offence resulted partly from a failure to exercise parental care and control and what effect making the parents pay would have on family relationships. The court would have to take a view on those factors and presumably—although it is not for me to say—that view could be challenged on appeal. That means that obstacles would be placed in the way of the operation of section 55 of the 1933 Act, and the clear principle that it embodies.
When we discussed what is now amendment No. 82—to which allegedly the relevant Minister did not refer in Committee—either the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) or the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) quoted from paragraph 3 of Home Office circular No. 3/1983 on the Criminal Justice Act 1982. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth pointed out, paragraph 3 suggested that the courts


might want to take account of certain factors—which have been reproduced in amendment No. 82—in deciding whether to make the parent or guardian pay a fine.
There is a world of difference between giving guidance to courts in various ways about those matters that they should consider—which we do all the time as a matter of sentencing practice—and requiring them by statute to take account of those and other considerations in every case. That would result in an inflexible approach and would considerably slow down justice.
I turn now to amendment No. 83. The purpose of clause 47(2) is to bring local authorities within the scope of the law on the parental payment of children's fines in section 55 of the 1933 Act. Local authorities that are prepared to take children into care should face up to, and meet, the same responsibilities as parents. Many do so, but, alas, a few do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington thinks that a good number do not.
We should be clear that clause 47 will apply to local authorities only under certain restricted circumstances. The Government firmly believe that those with parental responsibility must expect to face the consequences. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth quoted from that excellently written White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public". He was right to state that we propose that the parental payment provision should apply to local authorities only where
the court is satisfied that the offence followed a failure by the local authority to carry out its duties.
That is broadly the purpose of the Opposition amendment.
However, on reflection, it is not right to take that approach. It would give the courts an impossible task to perform before they could require a local authority to pay a fine. The courts would have to conduct a trial within a trial to determine whether the local authority had been negligent. That would turn into a mini-public inquiry into the procedures of the social services department in question. Youth courts are not equipped to do that, nor should they be asked to do it.
We believe that it would be better to give local authority social services departments, which try hard in many areas to do a good job, the protection already afforded by section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Section 55 provides an exception to the parental payment requirement where
It would be unreasonable to make an order for payment, having regard to the circumstances of the case.
That means that, where local authorities had properly carried out their responsibilities, courts would not be required to make an order against them. On the other hand, where local authorities had failed in their duties, the courts would be empowered to make a direction.
The approach followed in the Opposition amendment is unnecessary and counter-productive. Clearly there is a yawning gap between the Opposition and the Government, and I do not believe that we will be able to cross that gap easily.

Mr. Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. He would require the leave of the House before he could speak again.

Mr. Michael: I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in their characterisation of hoax telephone calls, especially where those calls

receive the oxygen of publicity. Those calls can be tremendously damaging to society, but they have nothing to do with the amendment.
The amendment is simple. Do the Government accept that it is wrong to punish the innocent? In a schizophrenic speech, the Minister made it clear that he does not care if the innocent are punished. In a characteristic speech, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington showed, as he showed in Standing Committee, that he has extreme views. He is not interested in the effectiveness of the sentence in reducing crime in the future and in protecting the public. He is interested only in fanning the flames of his own prejudice.
Under amendment No. 82, a parent who is negligent or is somehow to blame can be made to bear part, or all, of the burden of the fine. For half his comments, the Minister appeared to agree with Home Office circular No. 3/1983, which sets out the reasonable principles upon which the courts should operate. If the amendment were accepted, it would provide clear guidance to the courts. It would not constrain them. The amendment does not suggest that parents who share responsibility or the social services departments, which through failure, share responsibility, should not share the burden of payment.
The amendment is extremely fair, reasonable and simple.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister is creating a considerable smokescreen? He is trying to give some of his more atavistic Back Benchers the impression that he toughening up, but he has really imposed a power in place of a duty in respect of those aged over 16, and in that respect he has misled the House.

Mr. Michael: That is absolutely correct. The Minister either agrees with circular No. 3/1983, in which case he can accept the amendment without difficulty, or he agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, and if he goes to that extreme, he will destroy any reputation for reasonableness and liberality that he worked so hard to gain in Standing Committee.
At the end of the day, the Minister does not care whether the innocent parent or local authority is punished. By failing to restate with great authority the recommendations in circular No. 3/1983, he has introduced an clement of doubt.
I am certain that we will return to the amendment, perhaps with greater understanding and knowledge, in another place, and to allow that to happen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48

BINDING OVER OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in page 32, line 32, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 36, and insert
'a child or young person ("the relevant minor")'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 115.

Mr. Patten: The Government believe very strongly that parents have the single most important responsibility for ensuring that their children grow up to respect the law. Just before Christmas, the Home Office conducted a public


opinion survey through the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I could have been knocked down by a feather by the results, which showed, that with regard to preventing crime, the general public point the finger not at the Government, the police or schools, but at parents. The survey showed that 53 per cent. pointed the finger at parents. If we had conducted such a survey five or 10 years ago, there would have been a completely different response. There is a considerable sea change in the country. The Government have recognised it, and we are doing all we can to use that considerable change in public opinion away from the dated and outmoded concepts of the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Dicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the amendment does nothing else, it concentrates the minds of parents about their responsibilities and about where their kids are while they sit around with their feet up watching television?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. Nothing brings that home to me more sharply than the police telling me that, in 1988, 8,000 events happened that would otherwise have been crimes committed by children aged nine and under, who were therefore below the age of criminal responsibility. Some of those events were quite serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has it game, set and match on the basis of that statistic.
The responsibility of parenthood begins when children are very young and it continues until they are on the edge of maturity and of becoming responsible adults. That parental responsibility for children's behaviour does not cease when children get into trouble—quite the reverse. It is precisely because their children have got into trouble that parents should become involved. It is then that the firm hand or the quiet word can make all the difference.
Clause 48 ensures that parents are involved at what is inevitably a very difficult time for their children. For those under 16, we believe that it is correct that courts should have a duty to ensure that parents are involved, by binding them over. Many 16 and 17-year-olds will also need a firm hand and guidance if they are to succeed in keeping out of trouble. However, many will be living independent lives, and it would not be right to suggest that parents should take responsibility for their behaviour.
Clause 48 states that there is no cut-off point between being a child and being an adult. Some people mature at different rates between the ages of 16 and 17. There are tough, yobbish, thuggish 15-year-olds and wimpish 16 and 17-year-olds who deserve to be treated like children.
The proposal in clause 48 complements the other proposals relating to 16 and 17-year-olds. Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 strengthen those provisions further by removing inconsistencies in drafting which, I should be the first to state, were identified by the hon. Members for Huddersfield, (Mr. Sheerman) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I seem to be paying compliments to Opposition Members who are absent this afternoon.
In Committee, the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish mentioned several important matters which should be reconsidered. The hon. Member for Huddersfield argued that the distinction that clause 48(1)(b) makes between 16 and 17-year-olds living at home who are in full-time education and 16 and 17-year-olds

who are not, is artificial. A 16-year-old who is living at home but is not in full-time education may be equally or more in need of parental guidance than a 16-year-old living at home and in full-time education. Although the subsection was simply intended to take account of the practical limitations of parental influence over young people who live at home, I accept that the link with full-time education is, perhaps, artificial. I should not want to include in the Bill provisions that inadvertently encourage young people to leave school, home, or both at the same time.
6.30 pm
I also share the concern expressed by the now absent hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, who explained how linking the power to bind over a parent to the age and circumstances of the offender might allow a devious-minded 16-year-old to get around the provision by delaying conviction proceedings. That is why the Government have decided to table amendments Nos. 114 and 115, which would achieve the desirable end of empowering the court to bind over the parents of any 16 or 17-year-olds, when they consider such action helpful and sensible. The court would remain under a duty to do that where the child was under 16.
The amendments deal with two of the fears expressed by the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish, and will further improve the provisions regarding the sentencing of 16 and 17-year-olds and the encouragement of parental involvement. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the Minister for his compliments about the way in which Opposition Members made proposals. He made some nice comments about the Opposition's ability to argue rationally in Committee.
The amendments remove the absurd proposal that parents of 16-year-olds living at home and in full-time education can be bound over to prevent their children from offending. The inconsistency is that parents may be held responsible for young people who have stayed on in full-time education and who live at the parental home, and may be bound over to exercise proper care and control over the young person. However, if a young person is over 16 and is in work, is unemployed or has left home, the parents cannot be held responsible. Clearly, that is absurd.
I noticed that, every time a concession was made in Committee, the Minister left the Room to allow his right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) to deal with it. It is nice to see him conceding such a major argument on which amendments were tabled by the Opposition, but the consequence is that the superb speech that I was going to make on amendment No. 97 no longer needs to be made.

Mr. Patten: That is why I made the concession.

Mr. Randall: It means that I have had to make the speech that I would have made for amendment No. 97 in this debate.
The Minister's concession is good news because it means that we shall not have to debate amendment No. 97.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 115, in page 32, line 39, leave out
'falling within paragraph (a) above'
and insert


'where the relevant minor has not attained the age of 16 years'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 32, line 41 at end insert—
'(1A) In exercising the powers conferred by this section, the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, that is to say—
(a) whether the parents have neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person and whether any such neglect has caused or contributed to the commission of the offence,
(b) whether exercising the powers conferred by this section would reduce the likelihood that the child or young person himself will accept personal responsibility for his actions,
(c) the relationship of the child or young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of exercising the powers conferred by this section, as well as to any others which appear to be relevant.'.
The amendment lays down the criteria for binding over parents of juvenile offenders. Although the Labour party takes the subject of parental responsibility extremely seriously, we have different ways of expressing it.
I do not wish to interfere with your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought that the Minister's important remarks about hoax calls were rather out of order. However, we agree with him about the wickedness of such behaviour. It is important to make hoaxers realise that the technology now exists to catch them and that increasingly sophisticated telecommunications equipment means that they will be caught and penalised. Stopping young people offending in the first place is far more effective than dealing with them afterwards. The most effective way to ensure that they do not offend is to make sure that they know that the probability of their being caught is high.
Although we believe in parental responsibility, our notion of it is rather different from that of the Government. The amendment lays down the criteria for binding over parents of juvenile offenders. In Committee, the Minister often said that we are having our cake and eating it, because we do not like the clause on parental responsibility any more than we like the privatisation of prisons. When we realise that we shall not win a vote on the principle of an issue, we try to improve the clause and that aspect of the Bill, even though we disagree with the principle. I hope that the Minister does not come back with his tired old chestnut in response to the amendment.
It is important to emphasise that the inclusion of such criteria would go some way toward reducing the serious disquiet that the clause causes to those who work with and sentence juvenile offenders. The clause disturbs expert opinion in the criminal justice system and that is, in itself, disturbing. As we said earlier with reference to Lord Justice Woolf's report, it is important to work with the people who maintain and run the system. If the magistrates, the Crown prosecution service and the magistrates' clerks do not like a proposal, there is little chance of making it a success.
We predict that the clause will be stillborn. It provides that, when a juvenile is convicted of an offence, the court must bind over the parents
to take proper care of him and exercise proper control over him
unless it is considered that that would be unreasonable. The parents would be bound over in a specified sum up to £1,000 and, if the child re-offended, the parents woulld be liable to forfeit that amount. In effect, a binding over

amounts to a suspended fine. Binding over requires the parents' consent, but the clause empowers courts to fine parents who refuse to be bound over, which renders the idea of consent entirely academic. It is a strange piece of legislation—a sort of Catch 22. I could think of a ruder expression, which I probably should not use because it might be unparliamentary. If someone does not obey the legislation, he has the right to protest, but he will have to pay anyway. The parents will always have to pay.
Magistrates are extremely concerned about the possible effects of the clause and the Magistrates Association has made known its strong opposition to the proposal. In its comments on last year's White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", the association referred to
the harmful effect these proposals could have in hastening a breakdown of family relationships".
It continued:
Parents may feel that they are being punished twice for one offence of their child".
It is sad that we in the House can easily become divorced from the reality of parenting which is not normal, but marginal. As a student of economics many years ago, I was interested in the marginal concept. We made judgments on marginal utility and marginal demand. When dealing with the criminal justice system, it is important to remember that it impacts most on the marginal family that is just holding itself together with a little bit of luck and making its way through a crisis.
The Minister and the Government have not realised—but magistrates and probation officers do—that to fine parents in many of the families of which we are talking this evening could be the last marginal straw in breaking up that family. That may not concern the Minister, but it concerns the Opposition. We do not want legislation that destroys families instead of binding them together. We do not want more children being forced to live rough in London rather than staying at home because the feeling within the family has become so bitter that they leave home. The clause would help to do that.
The Justices' Clerks Society opposed the clause in its comments on the White Paper and cited a number of additional practical reasons for its concern. It said:
We oppose the proposals relating to the binding over of parents to take proper care of children and to exercise proper control over them. We foresee protracted hearings where parents refuse to be bound over and it is our view that a fine on a recalcitrant parent would be inappropriate … We also believe that the introduction of the requirement will inevitably lead to more contested juvenile cases, particularly where parents were already subject to a bind over. Even where the offence is admitted or proved, proceedings in relation to whether or not the parent (and if so which one) should forfeit the recognisance will lead to further, often disputed, hearings.
Anyone who is familiar with magistrates courts will know that justices' clerks are the most experienced in such matters, spend all their time in courts and give advice to magistrates. They are central to the role of the magistrates courts. I should have thought that the Minister would take more notice of their views. Unfortunately, the clause is driven by the unacceptable right of the Conservative party. I do not know whether the legislation on parental responsibility was made in some hidden, smoke-filled room of the Monday Club—we all know what a disgraceful organisation that is—or by another of the secret right-wing societies in the Conservative party.
6.45 pm
Magistrates already have the power to bind over parents in most cases, but they use it in only a handful of cases a year, because they know that in most cases it will not work. The Minister will have another chance in a moment, but in Committee he adeptly sidestepped my question about why, if the power already exists, magistrates do not use it. Will the Minister come back to explain why our contention is wrong? We believe that the power will not be used and that clause 48 will be stillborn. If the Government continue to pass legislation on the basis of ideology rather than what is good and workable, they will bring the criminal justice system into disrepute. It is bad to base law not on human behaviour, but on political ideology.
We believe that making parents forfeit money will increase the pressure on many families for whom life is already a struggle and penalising parents for their children's actions will cause enormous resentment. Where there is already tension between parents and child, it will aggravate relationships still further, putting young people even more at risk. In all too many cases, that is likely to accelerate the trend for parents to throw their children out of the house and swell the growing ranks of young homeless.
The clause is opposed by organisations representing magistrates, justices' clerks, probation officers and social workers, all of whom fully accept the importance of parental responsibility and are actively concerned to find effective ways of reinforcing it. They are the professionals who care about parental responsibility, not some nice little middle-class group, tucked away and working at a distance from the real problems of our country. It is all very well for the nice, tidy, middle-class minority, but the parents with whom we are dealing are the ones for whom the professionals know the reality is different.
I shall quote from a truly revolutionary, red source, The Times. The argument against the clause was summarised in a leading article on 10 November 1990—perhaps Conservative Members hold their breath—which stated:
This is the kind of proposal that makes perfect sense to middle class ministers."—
[Interruption.] The nice, middle-class Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not want to listen—I cannot think of anyone nicer or more middle-class.
The Times leader talked about
middle class Ministers, who generally leave the taming of adolescence to their children's boarding schools.
How true that is. It would be lovely to see some of the Cabinet sending their children to ordinary, public sector schools. The article continued:
For, say, the single mother in Brixton, struggling against odds to keep a young person on track, they represent only a threat. Many such parents will be tempted to wash their hands of their responsibilities. Parental influence—the last, best hope of deflecting the youngster from a life of crime—will be removed. The magistrates do not want these powers. Parliament should not force them to have them.
The Government have made it clear that they are determined to press ahead with the proposal despite widespread opposition. By accepting the amendment, they could at least reduce the damage that it is otherwise likely to cause families. I make a last plea to the Minister to think again about the clause, because it will help to destroy parents, families and responsibility.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I declare an interest as a solicitor. The clause has nothing to do with

nice middle-class Ministers, the right wing of the Conservative party or the middle classes, but a lot to do with sound sense. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) has known me for some years and knows that I am on the left of the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman might think that I am one of the soggy ones. I inform him that the clause appeals to the whole range of thinking throughout the country. It is not from a Tory think tank.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) talked about punishing innocent parents. When a youngster commits a crime, I am not even sure whether there is such a thing as an innocent parent. Parents have responsibility for what their children do. Anything that hon. Members can do to reinforce parental responsibility must be welcomed.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Magistrates Association was against the clause. I can speak only anecdotally, but almost to a man, the magistrates whom I have known over the years have said that they wanted stiffer powers to make sure that parents were held more accountable. I have appeared in courts many times as an advocate for youngsters aged 15, 16 or 17. Sometimes the parent will be present in court, and he will be asked, "How do you explain the crime that this 17-year-old committed? He was drinking in pubs and then got involved in violence at 10 o'clock at night." That parent may say, "It's up to him. His own time is his own. I don't bother about where he goes after school." Without a doubt, such a parent should be bound over and held accountable for that offence. Another parent may say, "I thought that my son was at the youth club, because that's where he said he was going." Clearly, it would be unreasonable to punish that parent. The courts will be sensible enough to deal harshly only with parents who display an attitude that shows that they could not care less.
I sometimes wonder whether we should extend parental responsibility to those in loco parentis. What about all the young men and women from all social classes who are at fine boarding schools such as Eton and Harrow? Those schools are in loco parentis during term time. The head teachers should be taken to the local magistrates court if one of their 17-year-olds is caught out on a drunken spree. I say that seriously, because schools take their in loco parentis role very seriously. They should be included in the legislation. We must do whatever we can to reinforce parental responsibility.

Mr. Maclennan: The Government have been at some pains to show that they do not wish to fetter the discretion of the judiciary. They used that argument most powerfully in the debate on the sentencing council but, exceptionally, in respect of this clause, they appear to want to fetter the discretion of the judiciary and to do so in circumstances that are opposed by all hon. Members who have representative roles in the administration of the criminal justice system.
This is a bad clause. Clearly it will be honoured in the breach more than in the observance. It is a bad clause because it removes from the court the right to consider the appropriateness of doing what it may wish to do by imposing upon the court a duty that it must discharge unless it thinks it unreasonable so to do. The amendment would remove the sting of the clause by describing the circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to do so. If the Minister argues that there is some discretion, it


would be appropriate to acknowledge the wisdom of describing the circumstances in which the discretion should be exercised. There has been considerable debate about this matter, but I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will not seek to trumpet the Government's concern for parental responsibility as being greater than that of hon. Members who take a different view about how parental responsibility is best reinforced.
The House is aware of the importance of parents in minimising behaviour that leads to crime and of the crucial role that parents can play. However, it cannot be right to impose upon parents a duty that excludes the particular circumstances of cases before the courts. If it were right, I do not believe that those who administer the criminal justice system and have responsibility would unanimously believe that the Government have got it wrong.

Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) cannot have read the Bill. We are not in Standing Committee—the Bill is being considered on Report. The reference to reasonableness is there for all the world to see. It is on page 32 of the Bill. Clause 48(1)(b) uses the words,
to exercise those powers unless satisfied that it would be unreasonable to do so".
The courts have all the opportunity they need to take into account that which is reasonable and that which is unreasonable.
There is nothing onerous on the courts or on those who come before the courts. Rather, there is a great opportunity, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) in a speech that was not only robust but was founded on his experiences in dealing with such issues in the courts. There is everything to be said for having that binding-over power not to punish but to prevent future crime. That is what we are attempting to do.
To use a phrase that I can remember being used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was Home Secretary, we are trying to ensure that children grow straight rather than crooked. If, by the intervention of the courts trying to encourage parents to take their responsibilities more seriously, children can be prevented from continuing to grow crooked, that is a very good thing. This measure has nothing to do with punishing parents but everything to do with trying to persuade them to take their responsibilities seriously and with preventing future criminality.

Mr. John Greenway: I spoke to a magistrate only the other day in relation to a case in which a child of only 14 was persistently playing truant. The father did not know that the child's truancy had gone on for six months, and it was subsequently discovered that, during those periods of truancy, many minor but nevertheless serious offences were committed. I am absolutely convinced, as is my right hon. Friend, that it is important to confront the parent with the reality of what the child is up to. That is the real benefit of the measure.

Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend says, this measure brings the parents slap up face to face with their responsibilities. I was interested in the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West that we should bring head teachers face to face with their responsibilities, too. I do not think that that is a matter for this Bill, but it is food for thought for a future Bill. My

right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is very concerned about truancy. We in the Home Office are worried about truancy. If we can deal with the truancy problem more effectively, we can not only prevent offending but bring up children who will perform better and achieve better in school.
We had long debates on this issue in Committee. Of course I take into account the views of the Magistrates Association and of justices' clerks as expressed by their national organisations, but there are about 27,000 magistrates in the country, and their views vary widely. Many magistrates strongly support our view.

Mr. Dicks: We are legislators; we protect the public. We do not legislate for the best interests of magistrates, magistrates' clerks, probation officers or social workers.

7 pm

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) will recall that, all through the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) kept talking about "the lobby" and holding up and reading from bits of paper which referred to the lobby's views. As my hon. Friend said, we are legislators, and we act in the public interest. We take into account the views of national bodies, which are important, but we must make up our own minds.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and I disagreed many times in Committee, especially about his attack on magistrates, which he withdrew. The Minister said that there were 27,000 magistrates and that their opinions differed widely depending on which clutch one talked to. If the measure is so popular, why is not it currently used by magistrates in more than a handful of cases?

Mr. Patten: The present legislation is not drafted in such a way as to encourage its use. We intend to introduce an integrated package of powers along the three particular tracks to which I referred earlier. That package, together with much more training for the magistracy in these matters, will lead to the much greater use of those powers by magistrates courts—and a good thing, too.
Amendment No. 90 is similar in intention to amendment No. 82. My reasons for opposing it are identical to those which I adduced in opposing amendment No. 82. Similar objections arise. I cannot accept the amendment, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 263.

Division No. 78]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Benton, Joseph


Allen, Graham
Bermingham, Gerald


Alton, David
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Blunkett, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Boateng, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Boyes, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Barron, Kevin
Caborn, Richard


Battle, John
Callaghan, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Bellotti, David
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Canavan, Dennis






Cartwright, John
McKelvey, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McLeish, Henry


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Maclennan, Robert


Clelland, David
McMaster, Gordon


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McWilliam, John


Cohen, Harry
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Corbett, Robin
Marek, Dr John


Crowther, Stan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cryer, Bob
Martlew, Eric


Cummings, John
Maxton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Meale, Alan


Darling, Alistair
Michael, Alun


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Morgan, Rhodri


Dixon, Don
Morley, Elliot


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Doran, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Murphy, Paul


Eadie, Alexander
Nellist, Dave


Faulds, Andrew
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
O'Hara, Edward


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fraser, John
Parry, Robert


Fyfe, Maria
Patchett, Terry


Galbraith, Sam
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Prescott, John


George, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Golding, Mrs Llin
Radice, Giles


Gordon, Mildred
Randall, Stuart


Gould, Bryan
Redmond, Martin


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Reid, Dr John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Richardson, Jo


Grocott, Bruce
Robertson, George


Hardy, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rooker, Jeff


Haynes, Frank
Rooney, Terence


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Henderson, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hinchliffe, David
Ruddock, Joan


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Short, Clare


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Illsley, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Ingram, Adam
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Kennedy, Charles
Turner, Dennis


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Vaz, Keith


Lambie, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Leadbitter, Ted
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Leighton, Ron
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Litherland, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wilson, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Winnick, David


Loyden, Eddie
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McAllion, John
Worthington, Tony


McAvoy, Thomas
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McCartney, Ian



Macdonald, Calum A.
Tellers for the Ayes


McFall, John
Mr. Martyn Jones and Mr. Ken Eastham.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)






NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alexander, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Allason, Rupert
Forman, Nigel


Amess, David
Forth, Eric


Amos, Alan
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Arbuthnot, James
Franks, Cecil


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Freeman, Roger


Ashby, David
French, Douglas


Atkinson, David
Gale, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gardiner, Sir George


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gill, Christopher


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Beggs, Roy
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bellingham, Henry
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bendall, Vivian
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grist, Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Ground, Patrick


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hague, William


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Body, Sir Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Boswell, Tim
Harris, David


Bottomley, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hayes, Jerry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayward, Robert


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bright, Graham
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hill, James


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hind, Kenneth


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Budgen, Nicholas
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butler, Chris
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Butterfill, John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irvine, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Irving, Sir Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Jack, Michael


Cash, William
Jackson, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Churchill, Mr
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Key, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James


Colvin, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Conway, Derek
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knapman, Roger


Cope, Rt Hon John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cormack, Patrick
Knowles, Michael


Couchman, James
Knox, David


Curry, David
Latham, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lawrence, Ivan


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Day, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dicks, Terry
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Dover, Den
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dunn, Bob
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Durant, Sir Anthony
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dykes, Hugh
Maclean, David


Eggar, Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Madel, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Mans, Keith


Favell, Tony
Maples, John






Marlow, Tony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mates, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Moate, Roger
Stevens, Lewis


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Summerson, Hugo


Mudd, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trippier, David


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Portillo, Michael
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Price, Sir David
Walters, Sir Dennis


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Ward, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, John
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Whitney, Ray


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Wiggin, Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan



Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Shelton, Sir William



Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 51

ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 35, line 43, al end insert:

'(6) After subsection (5) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(5A) In dealing with an offender under subsection (3)(a) or (5) above, the court concerned—
(a) shall take into account the extent to which the offender has complied with the requirements of the attendance centre order; and
(b) may assume, in the case of an offender who has wilfully and persistently failed to comply with those requirements, that he has refused to give his consent to a community sentence which has been proposed by the court and requires that consent.".'—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 64

POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRISONER CUSTODY OFFICERS ACTING IN PURSUANCE OF ARRANGEMENTS

Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 42, line 34, after 'wellbeing', insert
to protect them as far as possible from public scrutiny and insult, and in any such conveyances as are used to transport them to provide them with adequate ventilation, light and standards of physical comfort.'.
The amendment will bring the regulations governing the custody and transportation of prisoners outside prison into line with the European prison rules. Rule 50 states:
When prisoners are being removed to or from an institution, they shall be exposed to the public view as little as possible, and proper safeguards shall be adopted to protect them from insult, curiosity and publicity in any form.
The second part of rule 50 states:
The transport of prisoners in conveyances with inadequate ventilation or light, or in any way which would subject them to unnecessary physical hardship or indignity, shall be prohibited.
The European rules are not binding in law but the Council of Europe recommends that
governments of member states be guided in their internal legislation and practice by the principles set out in the text of the European Prison Rules … with a view to their progressive implementation.
The Committee of Ministers included that recommendation in the preamble to the rules, adopted by it on 12 February 1987.
In addition to requiring the adoption of the European prison rules, the amendment would extend to the prisoner custody officers the requirement of domestic rule 38, which states:
A person being taken to and from a prison in custody shall be exposed as little as possible to public observation, and proper care shall be taken to protect him from curiosity and insult.
The need for regulations governing the physical conditions in vehicles used to transport prisoners was graphically illustrated by the death from heat stroke in 1989 of Terence O'Shea. He was being transported from court to prison in a prison van with inadequate ventilation. The pathologist who carried out the investigation into the death said that, even five hours after his death, Mr. O'Shea's body temperature was still 2 deg Centigrade above normal. Perhaps the Minister of State will remember from physics that one can almost double the temperature to convert it into degrees Fahrenheit. That means that Mr. O'Shea's body temperature would have been about 4 deg Fahrenheit above normal. I do not know whether the Minister remembers the formula—I do: it is F minus 32 divided by nine equals C divided by 5. I am sure that the Minister will find that, by inserting 2 deg Centigrade into the formula. Mr. O'Shea's body temperature was 4 deg Fahrenheit above normal which is serious.
If the transportation of prisoners is contracted out to private companies which, by definition, are bound to have different motives from public organisations, there may be a temptation for them to cut costs and not provide adequate care and attention for the prisoners, which may result in inadequate ventilation and space. Our amendment seeks to make such unnecessary and wrong cost-cutting impossible.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to private companies. He


should bear in mind the fact that, if a private company has a contract, it will have an incentive to keep standards high so that it does not lose the contract when it is renewed. I appreciate that there is an ideological divide, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that what we have found in Southend-on-Sea when we have privatised some services is that private contractors want to maintain standards so that they can keep the job next time round?

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman makes a good argument, and I agree that that is the case, but the other side of it is that, to keep the business, a contractor would have to compete with the public sector, and to do so, he would undercut it on cost. The question is, where do the priorities lie in terms of cost-cutting? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that, where hospital services, such as catering, have been privatised in his constituency of Southend, East, there are numerous examples of things going wrong if there is too much cost-cutting. We are simply saying that there is a threat of such things happening. The Terence O'Shea case shows that we are talking about a real problem.
I am sure that the Minister of State will remember discussing this matter in Committee, when she said:
although I cannot accept the amendment with its current-wording, it would be churlish of me indeed not to take it away and consider bringing back at a later stage a suitable amendment which covers the hon. Gentleman's points, particularly about adequate lighting and ventilation, which I believe is already covered."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 1991: c. 564.]
Opposition Members came to this debate expecting the Government to table an amendment on this subject. Sadly, however, we have been disappointed. I do not believe that the right hon. Lady is being churlish, because that is not her nature, so other mechanisms within the Home Office must be causing this important matter not to be amended in legislation. The consequence is that the recommendations of the European Economic Community and the other rules to which I have referred, which exist purely to ensure good practice, are being omitted from our legislation. We regret that, and will listen carefully to see why the Minister has failed to table the amendment that we expected.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) has given me a little to think about. He reminded me of my physics lessons. Although physics was not one of my best subjects at school. I was not so bad at it that I could not recognise the intensity of heat to which Mr. O'Shea was subjected when he was being escorted.
We take extremely seriously the importance of protecting from curiosity and insult those who are being escorted and of ensuring adequate heat, ventilation and lighting. Although I have failed significantly in the eyes of the hon. Gentleman—kind though he has been towards me this evening and sorry though I am to have been unable to table the amendment to which he was looking forward—we shall table an amendment in another place in the form, we believe, of an order-making power so that, in relation to contracted-out prison escorts, the Secretary of State can make rules to protect prisoners from public scrutiny and insult.
The rules will be similar to the present rule 38(1) to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East

(Mr. Taylor) alluded in relation to private, contracted-out escort services. It is, however, important to remember that the O'Shea case occurred when the public sector was responsible for escorting. The rules need to be changed to ensure that, while prisoners are being escorted in the private sector, they have protection similar to that which they enjoyed before.
In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will feel reassured. Although I have been unable to table such an amendment this evening, it will be tabled in another place.

Mr. Randall: Opposition Members welcome what the Minister has said. It appears that she recognises the seriousness of the problem but was prevented from tabling an amendment today because of the lack of time to consider it fully. I note that she has said that the Government will introduce a measure in another place in the form of an order-making power. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the Minister's attitude and look forward to an amendment being inserted in the Bill in another place.
Accordingly, on behalf of the Opposition, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 66

POWERS AND DUTIES OF PRISONER CUSTODY OFFICERS ACTING IN PURSUANCE OF ARRANGEMENTS

Mr. John Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 43, leave out lines 13 and 14.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 117, in page 43, line 16, leave out 'to which this section applies' and insert
'which—
(a) is established after the commencement of this section; and
(b) is for the confinement of remand prisoners, that is to say, persons charged with offences who are remanded in or committed to custody pending their trial, or persons committed to custody on their conviction who have not been sentenced for their offences;'.
No. 118, in page 43, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert——
'(4) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall have effect as if there were omitted from subsection (2) above either—
(a) paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph; or
(b) paragraph (b) and the said word "and" or
(c) the words from "which", in the first place where it occurs, to the end of paragraph (b).
(5) No order shall be made under subsection (4) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
No. 119, in clause 74, page 47, leave out line 8.

Mr. Greenway: Clause 66 provides the framework for a private sector experiment through the provision of a new remand centre at Everthorpe.
In Committee, I introduced a group of amendments which would have had the effect of considerably widening the opportunity for private sector involvement throughout the prison service. We argued for that proposal for many hours, and I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend


the Minister of State has not been convinced by my arguments and has not agreed to the bolder step that I suggested.
I hope to have a little more success with this group of amendments. They are technical amendments, which would allow the experiment at Everthorpe to be extended in the light of the experience of that project. I acknowledge that my enthusiasm for private sector involvement in the remand system—and perhaps, eventually, in the prison service—is not shared at all by Opposition Members, or fully shared by some of my hon. Friends, who believe that we should proceed with much greater caution. I accept and acknowledge that majority view.
However, I hope that my right hon. Friend might see the wisdom of incorporating in the Bill a framework under which, subject to the agreement of Parliament. the experiment could be taken a stage further if the plans for Everthorpe prove successful. The changes I propose in these amendments would give the Home Secretary and the House the flexibility that the clause as drafted denies.
Surely, on the day on which Lord Justice Woolf s report has at long last been published, hon. Members can agree at least on the desirability of improving the prison regime still further. We shall need time to reflect on the detail of the Woolf recommendations. I have already spotted the suggestion concerning the provision of community prisons, with a view to maintaining links between a prisoner and his family and the community. I am sure that that would be very beneficial. Then there are the suggestions concerning alternative methods of managing prisons.
As I said in Committee, the need to improve the prison regime is urgent and great. It would be wrong to close our minds to some of the more innovative opportunities that the private sector may be able to offer. I acknowledge the need for a cautious approach, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that in these amendments we have struck the right balance, and that she will find it possible to accept them.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has said. In so doing, I am reminded of Corrie primary school on the island of Arran. Many years ago, I was a Minister in the Scottish Office for about a year and a half. There were lots of exciting things that I wanted to do, and lots of exciting reforms that I wanted to introduce, but looking back on that year and a half, the only specific thing that I recall achieving was keeping Corrie primary school open. The local council had proposed that it be closed, but as a Minister I had power to overturn that proposal. I did so, on the grounds that I thought that the school would prosper. Happily, it survives to this day. To justify my faith in my real achievement, I go to Arran every year for a holiday. That is one way of seeing the greatness of what I have done in politics over a period of 26 years.
In what way is Corrie primary school relevant to this clause, which, so far as I can see, is intended to be a great reforming provision? On the basis of what is laid down, it seems that only one remand prison will be available for consideration. Criminal justice measures come before us very rarely. If we have this as the basis of our experiment, and if we wait three or four years to see how it progresses, the prospect of reform will be very limited indeed. We are

not saying that there is a case for changing the whole character of the legislation—indeed, that cannot be done at Report stage—but we should have the opportunity—perhaps next year, perhaps the year after—to bring forward some regulations by which the matter could be reopened.
Why has there been so little progress? At the time of the Corrie school incident to which I referred, we had a very large, enthusiastic and talented civil service, whose members knew far more about everything than I did. That is why they did nothing at all—which was probably very wise. In the prisons section of the Home Office there are some extremely talented people, who probably know more about everything than I do. There is always a temptation for individuals to hold back, to avoid going too far. I hope that this Minister will have a great reforming career. Indeed, I know she will. She has great ability and integrity. I am asking her not to overturn the clause or to reopen the whole business, but simply to accept that, if there is a possibility—perhaps next year or the year after that—of reopening the subject by bringing forward regulations, that possibility should be grasped.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has been very reasonable, which is unusual for someone who consistently supports farmers. What he is saying is that things like this should not simply slip through but should be subject to affirmative resolution. Nothing could be more reasonable. Most of the views that my hon. Friend expresses are ones that I, as a Conservative, find it difficult to support. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that this is a very reasonable proposal which does not go too far.
We do not want to see the Minister's hands tied so that nothing can be done. There should be some arrangement whereby she could come back to the House and advise hon. Members to consider arrangements that had worked out. Perhaps they would not have worked out. All I am saying is that we should have some arrangement whereby, without drafting a completely new law, the case could be reopened. I hope that the Minister, who always displays reasonableness, will allow this little chink of light for the benefit of those who think that there is something worth while here.

Mr. Sheerman: This is the part of the Bill to which we object most strongly. I am sure that no hon. Member fails to understand the reasons for our objection. We believe that pressure is being exerted by certain elements in the Conservative party to push the Bill in an even more radically rightward direction.
Earlier today, we were talking about the most important report of Lord Justice Woolf. When I pressed the Home Secretary on whether the change of direction was a philosophical one, he did not seem to understand my point. That point is absolutely germane to this debate. For 12 years, the Government, instead of addressing the fundamental problems of our penal system, have thrown money—£1 billion—at the problem by building new prisons, but that did not work. More recently, they have come up with the notion—stimulated by organisations such as the Adam Smith Institute—that private prisons may provide the answer. In fact, neither is the correct approach, because the Government have got the philosophy wrong.
If the Minister is right in terms of her commitment to Woolf, she will one day reflect—probably quietly, away from the television lights and the Chamber—on the fact


that acceptance of the philosophy of Woolf involves accepting a total change of direction as a fundamental necessity. If she were to accept the pressure from some of her right-wing colleagues, on the Standing Committee and outside it, to broaden the scope of privatisation—which is what this amendment would do—she would be making the mistake of retaining the old bankrupt philosophy. What Woolf has provided—if only the Government could recognise it—is an opportunity to come up with the correct solutions to the problems of penal policy. The whole country would be grateful if the Government would show the courage and clarity of thought which are necessary to recognise that.
I expect that I shall not be successful, but I must try to persuade the right hon. Lady that, if she were able to recognise that dichotomy, she would reluctantly tell her colleagues that the Government had seen the light. I realise, of course, that she has to be polite to her colleagues. On this first day post-Woolf, the Government should show a willingness to change direction by refusing to go down the road of privatisation. The Labour party is totally opposed to the proposals for private remand prisons. We have always said that this would be the thin end of the privatisation wedge. Indeed, before the Bill had completed its Committee stage, the Minister had changed her mind and moved further in the direction of privatisation per se, rather than just privatisation of remand prisons.
We find those proposals repugnant. The case against privatisation was put most eloquently in July 1987. I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary, who was sitting on the Front Bench only a few minutes ago, is not here now to hear me quote the words that he uttered as Home Secretary. He said:
I do not think that there is a case, and I do not believe that the House would accept a case, for auctioning or privatising the prisons or handing over the business of keeping prisoners safe to anyone other than Government servants."—[Official Report, 16 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 1303.]
Why did privatisation get on to the Home Office agenda? The answer is simple. It did so because of the failure of the Government's policies, which has shown itself in one simple way—the overcrowding of our prison system. The number of prisoners escalated from 43,326 in 1983 to an alarming 50,265 in 1987. The pressure was particularly bad in the remand sector, where unconvicted prisoners endured some of the most squalid conditions. It goes against any concept of justice that people who have not been proved guilty of an offence are kept in the worst cells and the worst prisons.
The pressure grew for something to be done. We know that the Government's first reaction was the frantic building of more prisons. They expanded the prison building programme so much that they faced a bill of £1 billion on top of the running costs of £1 billion a year. That was a massive investment. If anyone was throwing money at a problem, it was the Government.
People could see that that was not working. It was suggested that we should go down the American route, but who wants to do that? Hon. Members who served on the Committee with me will be sick to death of my citing the American experience. In America, there were 3·33 million people in prison in 1974 and 1·3 million in 1990. I do not often correct the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon.
Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but by a slip of the tongue he got it wrong earlier. He said that we had the worst prison record in the industrialised world. While we may have the worst record of imprisonment per head of population in the Council of Europe countries, including Turkey, our record is not worse than that of the United States, and I hope that it never will be. The increase in the supply of prisoners there seems never-ending, and that looms large in the minds of the Government and the people of the United States.
The other suggestion which came out of the woodwork, or out of the Adam Smith Institute, was privatisation of the prisons—if not all of them, at least the worst affected, which are those on the remand side. Instead of building more prisons, the Government should have done something about reducing the prison population. They should not now, belatedly, be returning to the idea of privatisation. It is a delicious irony that these proposals for expanding the role of the private sector in the prison system should come at a time when the prison population is beginning to fall.
The Labour party's recommendations on reducing the prison population have at last been heeded. The Government have finally listened to the experts. I am not saying that the Labour party has great expertise, but it was prepared to listen to the experts before writing its policies on penal reform.
If this is the wrong policy at the wrong time, why are the Government pursuing it? Part of the answer must be that they are giving in to commercial interests. It is no secret that certain construction companies close to the Conservative party stand to gain from the privatisation of prisons. That such interests are influential in determining penal policy is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice. I am old enough to remember former United States President Eisenhower warning against the military-industrial complex. I should be warning against the penal-industrial complex, whose participants have more to gain from an increase in the prison population than from a reduction.
7.45 pm
There will be pressure for more prisoners. As I said in Committee, that is not a conspiracy theory—it is an inevitable law of economics. People do not go into such business to make a loss. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) spoke of privatisation. He will know that the guarding of a defence institution by a private security company is all very well with a top-rate company, but without regulation of the industry, chief constables worry about the quality of the firms at the lower end of the market. Competitive tendering forces Government bodies to accept the lowest or almost the lowest of tenders. The senior executive of a leading private security company said to me only in October, "Do you know, Mr. Sheerman, that in Scotland a defence establishment is being guarded by a private security company which pays its employees £1 an hour?" The hon. Gentleman will know about Scotland.
This is not a conspiracy theory. The economics of the situation, in an unregulated industry, will lead to the cowboys taking over not only in the rest of the private security world, but in private prisons. The Government have no plans to regulate security industry, and without such regulation, nothing that the Government say can


reassure the Opposition that there will not be a sector of the prison system run by the cowboy element of the private security industry.
Behind these measures is a black hole into which the Government's policy will fall—their unwillingness to regulate the private security industry. I know that I am anticipating a later debate, but the two are closely linked. In Committee, Conservative Members bizarrely told us that prisons built by private developers were unutterably better in design, construction and siting than those built by the public sector, which the Government argued were badly designed and planned buildings, with poorly executed work. Yet if a private contract is given to a firm to run as well as build the prison, they argue, standards suddenly and miraculously improve. That is a devastating comment on our building and development industry. I happen to know many people who work in the building industry, and that is a slur on their work. It is a misunderstanding of the public and private sectors.
Good, well-designed prisons can be built and run by the public sector. The Woolf report says just that. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said that we had a good prison service and a rotten system, he hit the nail squarely on the head. That is the problem that the Government cannot address. Can the private sector build prisons and operate them well and cheaply?
It is interesting that all the rhetoric about effectiveness that we heard in the early days of this debate seems to have disappeared. The financial memorandum states:
Competitive tendering for the operation of remand centres is not expected to have a significant financial implication.
The American experience leads to the same conclusion. Even Charles Logan, a member of President Reagan's commission on privatisation, in the best researched pro-privatisation book on the American scene, agrees that it is still unproven that private prisons will cost any less than prisons in the public sector.
It was noticeable and alarming that, in discussions with Deloitte Haskins and Sells, private-sector operators claimed that savings could be made by reducing staffing levels through design innovation and technology. Groups such as Inquest are greatly worried about the prospect of turning remand prisons into electronic boxes. The appalling number of suicides in recent years shows that remand prisoners need close attention and contact with more and better qualified staff, not more electronic wizardry and gadgetry. All the research shows that human contact is most important in preventing suicide. That was not mentioned in today's statement and the questions and answers following it. Even since the ghastly events at Strangeways, more people there have committed suicide.
I do not want to bore the House with the American experience, but despite the vast prison population there, there are no private federal prisons and there are only 9,000 adult offenders in privately run gaols. Therefore, the experience of the United States is extremely limited.

Mr. Chris Butler: As I understand the figures, 25 per cent. of prisoners are federally delivered up to the private sector, and there is now a total of 20,000 beds in the private sector in the United States.

Mr. Sheerman: I think we split down the middle. My latest figures, which I got from the House of Commons Library only this week, show that there are no federal prisoners in the private sector, but that the numbers in the

private sector may have risen. The hon. Gentleman may have more up-to-date figures than I do, but between 9,000 and 20,000 is a tiny percentage of the 1·3 million prisoners.
In Committee, the Minister rested her case on the Australian experience. I have checked that, and found, that the position is certainly not as impressive as she would have us believe. The experiment has been going on for only a short time. The number of prisoners in the one prison that is in the private sector is small. Most published material relates to Borallon prison in Queensland, but the claims made about its success are premature. Most experts in our penal lobby argue that it is far too early to make claims about improved recidivist rates, that the prison was operational only in January 1990 and that to make such a claim borders on the irresponsible. It is much too early to speak about cost-effectiveness. Borallon is still running in, and for much of the time has been running at under capacity. The Australian and American experiences do not lead to the conclusions that Ministers seem to suggest.
There is a problem in accepting the Government's arguments when one considers the moral aspect. It is easy to get entrapped by the Government's logic and to argue on their terms. In that way, we are reduced to talking about pounds and pence—the cost of imprisonment. On the day the Woolf report is brought to the attention of the House, we should think about philosophy and underlying values. At the forefront of our argument are our strong moral objections to the use of private prisons.
The deprivation of liberty is the strongest punishment that can be imposed on an individual. Once a court has decided on a prison sentence, the state should be directly responsible for that prisoner throughout his or her sentence. The prospect of private companies deriving commercial gain from imprisonment is grossly distasteful. Private companies, motivated by the requirements to maintain profit margins and share dividends, will compromise inmate care and welfare provision. The Government are taking a cavalier attitude to that and to public safety.
We are gravely concerned that control and security may be seriously compromised by undertrained and inexperienced employees of the private-sector industry. We doubt that our security guards will have the ability to handle the difficult and potentially violent situations that can arise.
I do not have to expand on my case on a day like today. The report about Strangeways and the evil disturbances in our prisons last April leads any fair-minded Member and citizen to the conclusion contained in paragraph 1.4 of the Woolf report. It pays tribute to the men and women involved for their professionalism and care. Indeed, Woolf specifically says that two further questions should have been asked when he was given his terms of reference. The question should$not have been why the riots took place, so much as why they had not taken place years ago, given the state of our prisons. What is the conclusion? In paragraph 4, he concludes that, if it were not for the dedicated, highly trained professionalism of those who run our prisons—the governors and prison officers—the riots would have occurred earlier and would have been more widespread.
When the Minister replies, will she tell us what guarantee she has about the level of care, training and expertise that will be found in the most difficult area of the penal system, the remand system, or any other sector when the penal system comes under private unregulated industry? Remand prisoners are highly volatile. Many have never been in prison before and are terrified and even


psychologically disturbed by the experience. Many will be found innocent. What guarantees does she have about the provision in private remand or any other private sector of the penal system?
I have made the main points of my case.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: At length.

Mr. Sheerman: This is an important debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not normally take so long on Report, but, as he knows, one or two of these matters go to the heart of the Bill.
There is an inherent misconception in the proposal, which may intrigue the hon. Member for Southend, East. I know that that hon. Gentleman likes the free market, which is lauded by the Tories, but it is a strange marketplace that has one customer only and where those at the sharp end in receipt of service are not at liberty to change their supplier. Such a lack of choice does not represent a free market, more a captive one.
8 pm
We want to flush out the Government's true intentions, because the Minister was less than clear in Committee. On 31 January she said:
The Government cannot accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale … because we would need to come to terms with the full implication of what he has to say".
Later on, however, there was a more positive reaction from the Minister:
I am willing to consider the amendments".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 31 January 1991; c. 577, 601.]
It must have been those differing comments that totally confused the press, because when I spoke to some of them in the following two days, half of them thought that the right hon. Lady had warmed to the amendment, while the other half said that she had thrown it out without much thought. I should like the right hon. Lady to come clean about her views.
A much clearer view of the Government's intentions is provided in the magazine New Builder. It is interesting to look occasionally at the less customary sources of information. We all read The Economist, the New Statements and Society, and such publications, but it is not often that one reads New Builder. In the 7 February edition, we learned that the hon. Member for Rydedale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) had told the journal that:
they had convinced the new Home Secretary and the Prisons Minister, Angela Rumbold, that the proposals for privately built and managed prisons in the Criminal Justice Bill did not go far enough".
We also learned that, on the proposals to end the remand of juveniles to prison department establishments and secure more accommodation, the Government were considering the proposal that councils should contract private consortiums to undertaken those projects on a design, build and manage basis. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
We also discovered from that magazine that the hon. Member for Westminster, North is even more enterprising when it comes to city-centre prisons. He considers that Brixton, Pentonville and Wormwood Scrubs represent an endless source of land for the property market. He said that those prisons occupy sites of considerable value and that

the Home Office is warming to the idea of giving the sites to private developers in return from them building smaller, privately managed remand centres nearer the crown Courts".
Obviously New Builder has some insight into what is going on in the Tory party and its relationship with the building industry. It makes absolutely fascinating reading.
Conservatives may argue that, although the Woolf report concludes that the prison system is in an appalling state and in need of change, the Labour party is being a dog in the manger because it will not go along with the Tory party's insights into how to change such dreadful conditions in our prisons. Such an argument is a red herring. The Woolf report should lead to a radical improvement of the present prison system, not the development of a few brand new prestigious private prisons.
We believe that the state of the penal system is too important to deal with on party political grounds. The future penal system should be agreed upon by the two parties and the Woolf report should be agreed upon by the two parties, and the Woolf report should be the basis of that agreement. If the Conservative Government could bury their ideological hang-up on privatisation of prisons, they would discover that there was enormous support for policies that would radicalise our present penal system.
It is important to note the poisonous effect that the obsession with privatisation will have on the men and women working in the prison service. Such privatisation is opposed by everyone who works in the prison service—certainly the prison governors do not want it. In that connection, how on earth could Ministers introduce an amendment in January concerning what the press described as "flying governors"? No matter how the wonderful private remand centres or prisons are extolled by the Government, it seems that, when a riot takes place, they cannot cope.
The Government suddenly introduced an amendment to provide that a governor from a proper prison in the public sector would be flown in at a moment's notice to deal with any crisis. That is bad enough in itself, but the Government did not consult the governors about that proposal. I understand that the Minister had met representatives from the Prison Governors Association only a couple of days before, but no mention was made then of that proposal. That is a strange way in which to deal with the professionals who run our prison service.
The right hon. Lady should think again before she opens the door a bit more to the amendment tabled by the right of her party. On reflection, she will appreciate that it represents a dangerous path. Such a privatisation measure could sink the one opportunity we have to catch up with the civilised part of the world on penal policy.

Mr. Bruce George: I should not think that many hon. Members or people outside believe that our prison service is anything other than a national disgrace. It is not right simply to point the finger of guilt at the present Government, as the deficiencies within the prison system did not start in 1979—the blame must go back many generations.
In the past 11 years, the Government have had opportunities to make the necessary reforms, and some things have been done that I applaud wholeheartedly. It is regrettable, however, that in typically British fashion it took a crisis in the prison service—the riots—to precipitate the encyclopaedic report that was presented to us today.
Just because matters are in crisis does not mean that we should move to an aberrant system that is shifting, however incrementally, to a system of private prisons. I believe that Woolf and Tumim have pointed the way and that, if the Government, and future Governments, are prepared to devote resources and provide the political support, we shall have a prison system about which we need not feel a deep sense of shame. If Ministers were asked to take foreign visitors round many of our city-centre prisons, built in the previous century, I am sure that they would refuse to do so. No person of any compassion could feel anything but acute embarrassment at visiting many of our city-centre prisons.
The state of such prisons is no criticism of prison officers, who cannot like to work in such an environment. At least prisoners are in and out in a set time in most cases, but prison officers must spend much of their careers in that dreadful environment and in many senses the effect is degenerative. In passing, I pay a tremendous tribute to the men and women of the prison service who have been engaged to work for many years in adverse surroundings.
We all know that there is much scope for improving the system, but we tend to forget that there is much in the prison service that is experimental and innovative and about which we need not feel the same sense of humiliation. We need to build on those positive elements of the prison service. Lord Justice Woolf has pointed the way in which Governments must go. I cannot accept, however, that even a limited experiment with privatisation is worthy of anything other than condemnation. If by some misfortune the Government accept the amendment, more than a simple experiment would be involved, because that experiment will lead to a mushrooming of private prisons. That cannot be endorsed.
I support many reforms in the prison service and many of the alternatives to prison, but there will always be a place for prisons. I do not belong to the utopian wing of my party, which believes that if only we provided good opportunities for people they would not commit crimes, and that we must create alternatives to prison for almost all who would otherwise go there. That is nonsense. There are people who need punishment, which should be paralleled by a reforming element. So let us reform, but let us not indulge in this nonsense.
I should have thought that the privatisation mania to which we have been subjected had run its course. Perhaps the Government have been tempted to support plans for more privatisation than we had expected to prove to some of their supporters outside, who may be feeling depressed about how the Government have evolved in the past couple of months, that there is still a strong ideological commitment to privatisation and to some of the dottier ideas of the past 10 years. Without wanting to insult friends in the academic world, I must point out that such ideas should have been confined to professors' offices, but now, because of the peculiarities of the political system, they have been enshrined in legislation of which we are suffering the consequences.
I am not opposed to all forms of privatisation. As I said in Committee, I would not fight to the death to return some privatised companies to the private sector. Some concerns will inevitably remain outside public control, but I cannot concede that privatising the prisons is anything more than an idea supported by the more dotty Members

of the House. I had hoped that privatisation of the prisons was just the death rattle of the ideological passions of the 1980s, but perhaps my assessment was too optimistic.
Privatisation of the prisons can come in many guises: in the form of contracting out services such as catering or cleaning; and in the form of allowing contractors to build, manage and operate. There is no single model for privatisation.
Why are private prisons to be inflicted on us? They may be a consequence of the ideologically impoverished seeking inspiration from other societies that have gone through the process and picking up their ideas, running them across the Atlantic and trying to translate them, in their feeble way, into British clones of the American experiment. Many of the perceptions of the success of the privatised prisons in the United States have been based on simplistic analyses. The Select Committee on Home Affairs investigated private prisons, and the aspects of its report that relate to private prisons contain more of the ethos of the political pamphlet than the ring of a serious report by a Select Committee.
8.15 pm
The report by Mr. Young for the Adam Smith Institute was also based on limited research experience. Extrapolating on the basis of limited experience, the report judged, wrongly, that the experiment had been successsful in the United States.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said earlier, the experiment in the United States has been too limited. An excellent book recently published by Ryan and Ward on private prisons in America and on whether the American experience has any relevance to us states:
The American experience of privatising the delivery of punishment overall in the United States is both uneven and limited. It is uneven in that it is more prevalent in the south … more common in the juvenile sector than in adult corrections; more likely to apply to service delivery than to ownership and/or management.
So that research has shown that the experiment in the United States has been limited, and we should not draw the wrong conclusions from it. The Adam Smith Institute, which is closely connected with the Heritage Foundation in the United States, has praised a system that is undeserving of eulogy. Mr. Young could see no evil in the private sector and was unwilling to see Governments do anything in the prison sector free from his criticism.
The Select Committee that visited the United States produced a political report. By that I do not mean to criticise its Chairman, who has not attempted to hide his close connection with the private security industry. He has been an able proponent of the private prison system, and his predecessor as Chairman—this is also a matter of public record—now serves as chairman of an organisation that is considering building private prisons.
The Home Affairs Select Committee did not perform a good service for the House. I am appalled by the idea of a prison industry, by the idea of the state delegating responsibility for punishment to the private sector and by the idea of prisons being run for profit. I fear that a private prison system will be largely unaccountable. It will not deliver the nirvana that some of its proponents argue it will—places where the food is great, where warders run around not dressed in uniform and where wonderful recreational facilities abound: in short, places not unlike Hi-de-hi holiday camps. That is all an illusion.
On the basis of my experience of the private security industry, I must conclude that the private sector is ill equipped to manage, run and staff prisons. I shall discuss later why I believe that. Bidding for contracts can mean only that good companies will be driven down to the lower level of their competitors. Staff salaries will suffer, as will staff training. We shall not begin to reach the stage recommended by Lord Justice Woolf. He has argued that, although the standard of training in the United Kingdom could be described as reasonable, we must aim for higher standards. The Netherlands may provide us with a model.
Our standards of training are already light years ahead of those in almost every private security company. If the private sector cannot remotely match even the present system of training, which Woolf has argued is inadequate, I cannot believe that it will have either the resources or the enthusiasm to emulate the standards that he requires of prison officers in both sectors.
I hoped that the Bill would merely introduce a narrow experiment and that, when that experiment had been properly evaluated, it would be allowed to die the death. I fear, however, that the Government have other things in mind; and I deplore that.

Mr. Maclennan: The case in principle against the clause has already been adequately deployed, and I do not propose to continue with that line of argument. I wish the Minister to explain how she expects the clause and the amendment—with which she is rumoured to be sympathetic—to fit in with the Woolf recommendations for remand prisons.
In my view, both the clause and the amendment are inconsistent with the purposes of the Woolf report; moreover, they make the achievement of the ends recommended in that report—after careful consideration—much more difficult. According to Woolf,
the inquiry has concentrated particularly on the position of remand prisoners. This is because they represent a significant proportion of the prison population, and because they unjustly suffer some of the worst conditions in the prison system … To emphasise the importance of these matters, the inquiry recommends that there should be a separate statement of purpose setting out the prison service's responsibilities relating to remand prisoners. This statement of purpose should reflect the principle that remand prisoners should normally be accommodated, treated and managed separately from convicted prisoners.
That, surely, is a profoundly important recommendation. How does the clause fit in with it? It seems to want to establish a bifurcation in the custodial treatment of remand prisoners. At least the original clause did not intend all of them to be subject to privately contracted arrangements; but, if the Woolf recommendations apply to the prison service, they will presumably have to apply, and be monitored, in the private sector, which strikes me as a bizarre administrative approach.
Woolf went on to consider the problems of remand prisoners in much more detail. On page 250, in paragraph 10.79, he wrote:
The many initiatives which have been taken in recent years to try to tackle the problem created by the size of the remand population have on the whole been successful. Indeed the scale of their success suggests that there were, and almost certainly still are, a substantial number of people remanded in custody who should not be in prison … The problems created by the unnecessary remands need to be tackled from a number of different directions. Each involves co-operation between the Courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Probation Service and the Prison Service.

If the clause and the amendment are passed, a fifth wheel will be added. Similar co-operation will be needed with the private sector, involving a separate series of relationships. I believe that that will confound the present administrative confusion, in the part of the prison system in which the greatest problems are widely recognised to exist.
We must judge the appropriateness of the clause and the amendment by whether the tests recommended by Woolf are more or less likely to be met. On page 327, in paragraph 12.309, Woolf suggests
Accredited Standards for remand centres".
That will mean a set of separate tests and monitoring arrangements to find out whether the privatised service is operating effectively, which cannot make sense.
The whole report reflects considerable disquiet about the management of the remand population. Woolf diagnoses that as stemming in part from the assumptions that are made about the degree of security that all remand prisoners require. The privatisation proposal strikes me as, at best, irrelevant to the solution of the problems described so cogently by Woolf, and, at worst, likely to make the task of eliminating them much more difficult.
As well as recommending the implementation of certain broad principles, Woolf suggested that helpful guidance would be provided by the proposals in the Prison Reform Trust's publication about regimes for remand prisoners, by Dr. Sylvia Casale and Miss Joyce Plotnikov. Will that helpful guidance be required of those who run the private sector? It is difficult to explain or justify a bifurcation of the system in a sector that has had so many problems, leading to—admittedly—so much unfortunate practice.
It is not as though the Government were proposing a "pure" privatisation. Those who run the prisons will have to operate according to rules and regulations established by Government; the controller, for instance, will be a Crown servant. This is an example of gesture politics on the part of Home Office Ministers who are trying to placate the holders of an uninformed view within their own party, which carries no support outside that party and which the Government would be wise to reject. They now have the perfect reason not to act; indeed, if they accept the amendment, it will be seen as a pre-emption of the Woolf recommendations—as, indeed, thumbing their nose at recommendations, and a pretty contemptuous approach to some serious suggestions. That would be highly unfortunate.

Mrs. Rumbold: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) moved several amendments to clause 66 that would have been rather more dramatic in their effect than amendment No. 116. Perhaps he listened carefully to the debate and to the comments of our hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), who said that, if we want to extend clause 66, which applies only to remand prisoners, we should proceed cautiously and step by step to ensure that contracting out is not only acceptable to the Home Secretary and the Government but an effective means of managing prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said that, if the Government accepted the amendment, that was the way in which he would expect us to proceed.
The Wolds is the only remand prison that can be contracted out under clause 66, which the Government are


minded to enact. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) expressed concern about private prisons being a dreadful failure or an aberration. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is saying only that, if it is proved that they can be effectively managed by the private sector, the Government, having carefully considered the implications and ramifications, might extend that proposal to, for example, a young offenders' institution. That is a reasonable proposition for the House to consider.
We have had a long and considered debate. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made the Labour party's position clear. It opposes the private sector being involved in the running of prisons. I understand that, but I do not necessarily agree with the ideological point that the prison service can be run only by the public sector. I do not accept that only the public sector should be responsible for the management of prisons.
The debate is being held on the day when the Wolff recommendations became public. I reaffirm—I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield accepts this in the spirit in which he made his comments to me—that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, and indeed the whole Government, are committed to improving the prison service. I do not agree with the suggestion by the hon. Member for Huddersfield that the Government have tried to improve the prison service simply "by throwing money at it", although since 1979 much public sector money has been spent on improving prison service establishments, which were in a distressful state.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, only three years ago, our prisons were full and it was not possible to refurbish them. We therefore opened eight new prisons, and will open a further 12 in the next few years. Coupled with the decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced today to end slopping out by 1994, that will contribute to achieving the important target of reforming the prison regime. If a prisoner must slop out four times a day, it does not help to establish a good regime under which he can undergo a sensible education, work and training programme.

Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Lady has delicately avoided giving a firm commitment to implement the Woolf recommendations, which is what Labour Members have been waiting to hear.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman has already received an answer. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a package of measures to implement immediately a major part of the Woolf recommendations. As the report was published only today, he reasonably said that many of its recommendations will be considered for inclusion in a White Paper. No Government, of whatever political persuasion, could have done more than my right hon. Friend.
I must confess to the hon. Member for Huddersfield that New Builder is not my early morning or bed-time reading. Perhaps I should ensure that I read it as well as Punch, the Spectator and The Economist. I must also confess that I do not yet read the New Statesman and Society.

Mr. Sheerman: What about Christopher Robin?

Mrs. Rumbold: As all my hon. Friends know, Christopher Robin is a favourite of mine.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested that clause 66 and the amendments would be incompatible with the Woolf recommendations. I do not share that view. I do not see why private remand centres, which perhaps would use different methods but would have the same aims, could not operate successfully. They would operate under contract to the Home Office. I do not see why co-operation with other parts of the criminal justice system would be more difficult under these proposals.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Woolf recommendation to segregate remand prisoners within the prison regime was the basis of the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee on private sector involvement in the remand system?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is correct. The Government are taking the first step in considering contracting out a remand prison. We believe that this opportunity will not easily arise again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, this is a chink of light. If, and only if, the contracted-out remand centre proves to be a success might we move towards privatisation of other parts of the prison service. The House should accept the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 174.

Division No. 79]
[8.41 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amess, David
Chapman, Sydney


Amos, Alan
Chope, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Churchill, Mr


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, David
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Batiste, Spencer
Cormack, Patrick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Couchman, James


Beggs, Roy
Curry, David


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Day, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Devlin, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dicks, Terry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Fallon, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Favell, Tony


Brazier, Julian
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bright, Graham
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Michael (Brlgg &amp; Cl't's)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Sir Antony
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Budgen, Nicholas
Franks, Cecil


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Butler, Chris
French, Douglas


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gill, Christopher






Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Morrison, Sir Charles


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moss, Malcolm


Goodlad, Alastair
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mudd, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Gregory, Conal
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Grist, Ian
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Ground, Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannam, John
Page, Richard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Patnick, Irvine


Harris, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Pawsey, James


Hawkins, Christopher
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayes, Jerry
Portillo, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Price, Sir David


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Rathbone, Tim


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Redwood, John


Hill, James
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hind, Kenneth
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rost, Peter


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rowe, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Irvine, Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Irving, Sir Charles
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jack, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jessel, Toby
Shelton, Sir William


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sims, Roger


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Key, Robert
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Squire, Robin


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knapman, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stern, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Knox, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Latham, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sumberg, David


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Summerson, Hugo


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maclean, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Madel, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malins, Humfrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mans, Keith
Tredinnick, David


Maples, John
Trippier, David


Marlow, Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Viggers, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mates, Michael
Walden, George


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walters, Sir Dennis


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ward, John


Mitchell, Sir David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moate, Roger
Watts, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wells, Bowen


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wheeler, Sir John





Whitney, Ray
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Widdecombe, Ann
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Jerry
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wilkinson, John



Winterton, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. Tim Boswell.


Wood, Timothy





NOES


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Hardy, Peter


Allen, Graham
Harman, Ms Harriet


Alton, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Henderson, Doug


Armstrong, Hilary
Hinchliffe, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashton, Joe
Home Robertson, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hood, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Battle, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bell, Stuart
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bellotti, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Illsley, Eric


Benton, Joseph
Ingram, Adam


Bidwell, Sydney
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Blunkett, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Boyes, Roland
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bradley, Keith
Kennedy, Charles


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lambie, David


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Caborn, Richard
Leighton, Ron


Callaghan, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Loyden, Eddie


Canavan, Dennis
McAllion, John


Cartwright, John
McCartney, Ian


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McFall, John


Clay, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clelland, David
McKelvey, William


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McLeish, Henry


Cohen, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Corbett, Robin
McMaster, Gordon


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meacher, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Meale, Alan


Doran, Frank
Michael, Alun


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eadie, Alexander
Morgan, Rhodri


Eastham, Ken
Morley, Elliot


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Hara, Edward


Galbraith, Sam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Primarolo, Dawn


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gould, Bryan
Radice, Giles


Graham, Thomas
Randall, Stuart


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Reid, Dr John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Richardson, Jo


Grocott, Bruce
Robertson, George






Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rooker, Jeff
Thompson, Jack (Wansback)


Rooney, Terence
Turner, Dennis


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Vaz, Keith


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N.


Sedgemore, Brian
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Sheerman, Barry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Noes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 117, in page 43, line 16, leave out
'to which this section applies'
and insert
'which—
(a) is established after the commencement of this section; and
(b) is for the confinement of remand prisoners, that is to say, persons charged with offences who are remanded in or committed to custody pending their trial, or persons committed to custody on their conviction who have not been sentenced for their offences;'.—[Mr. John Greenway.]

Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 43, line 19 at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State shall prescribe in any contract entered into under subsection (2) above standards which shall include standards with respect to—
(a) space per person, air volume, ventilation, heating, floor space, window space and time per day spent in cells;
(b) bathing facilities and frequency of opportunities for bathing;
(c) sanitary facilities and inmates' access to sanitation;
(d) supply of clothing;
(e) provision of meals;
(f) medical care;
(g) inmates' access to work, training, education, association, exercise and physical education;
(h) facilities for visits and inmates' contact with families;
(i) inmates' access to lawyers;
(j) provision of information concering bail and legal aid;
(k) inmates' access to advice and assistance from probation officers and social workers; and
(l) facilities for religious observance, to which the contracted out prison shall conform.'.
Amendment No. 91 is in line with our general views in opposition to prison privatisation that we outlined in the debate on the previous amendment. It deals with the serious problem of providing minimum standards. It would require privately managed remand centres to meet specific minimum standards laid down in the contract. That sounds as though I want to have my cake and eat it, but the amendment is intended to improve something that we hate, loathe and detest.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have made it clear that we fundamentally oppose the privatisation of the management of prisons, which is wrong in principle and fraught with serious dangers in practice. If the Government proceed with the private management of one or more penal establishments, everything possible must be done to ensure that private contractors are held accountable for providing decent standards for prisoners.
The amendment is clear and no one can misunderstand our intentions. The case for setting standards of the kind set out in the amendment was made in the Green Paper, "Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System", published in 1988. Paragraph 69 of that document states:
Operating a remand centre will make heavy demands on the management responsible, and it is important that the company is left in no doubt as to the essential requirements. Contracts will have to set clear and enforceable standards. In the present prison system there is no existing composite document which lays out comprehensively and in detail the requirements for a remand centre regime. One will therefore have to be developed for this purpose. In order to give scope for innovative solutions to problems, it will be important for standards to be defined so far as possible in terms of the results to be achieved, rather than the methods to be employed.
I do not want to delay our proceedings, and I realise that the arguments are understood by the Minister and by all sections of the House. Minimum standards will be debated time and again as we return to the Woolf report and refine its message. Once we have had an opportunity to consider the 800 pages of the report at more leisure than we have had today, I am sure that we shall return to the subject of minimum standards in both public and private sectors.

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand the position of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has once more emphasised his opposition to the proposal for privatisation within the prison service. Although he reiterated his concerns about the proposal, he none the less stated that, if the Government proceed with the proposal, it is important that there should be high standards which would be rigorously enforceable.
For the sake of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, I repeat the assurance given in March 1989 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, who was then Home Secretary:
Standards would be high and would be rigorously enforced."—[Official Report, 1 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 278.]
A contract would cover the issues set out so clearly in amendment No. 91. While I cannot list all the other things that will be set out in the contract, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all those matters and more will be covered. We shall not tell contractors how to do their job but shall set out clearly in the contract what we wish them to achieve in respect of good and safe care of the prisoners to protect the public as well as the prisoners.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister's response to the amendment show that she accepts for privatised remand prisons the recommendation made by Lord Justice Woolf that there should be accredited standards for prisons? If so, does she also accept it for the public, or will there be two different sets of standards?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would recall, if he had been present this afternoon, that when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary presented the Woolf report to the House, he said that he would reflect on that matter and deal with it in the White Paper to be issued later this year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that he is fully aware of that consultation process.
I wish to reassure the hon. Member for Huddersfield that the parts of the contract which deal with the matters under discussion will be made public. Confidentiality will apply only to those parts of any contract which, for


sensible, commercial reasons are too sensitive from a security point of view. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that we have given satisfactory reassurances about the way in which contracts will be drawn up.

Mr. Sheerman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9 pm

Mr. George: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 43, line 19, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State shall only enter into contracts with persons under subsection (2) above if he is satisfied that persons employed by them are adequately trained and vetted.
(2AA) The Secretary of State shall issue guidelines setting out the standards and qualifications of applicants for contracts under this section.'.
My remarks will be brief because, first, I moved the amendment in Committee and, secondly, I have been leaned on.
Those hon. Members who attended the Committee will know that I speak with some interest in the operation of the private security industry. I said earlier, that the concept of private prisons appals me. There is no point in being utopian and saying that there will be no private prisons, because the Bill will be enacted. At least there has been one experiment in the form of a privatised remand centre, on which we may expand.
If we are to have privately run remand centres, it is incumbent on us to discuss the details of their staffing and management. I should prefer to have members of the current prison service operating in prisons, because they have had a lengthy training. They attend a training college near Wakefield, for which they are carefully selected—only one in 10 of those who apply are selected. On completion of the training course, they are closely supervised. These dedicated men and women have an esprit de corps based on a long tradition of public service in prisons. They require enormous experience and are trained and retrained.
The Woolf report, however, did not consider that that was good enough. Referring to training, it argued, in paragraph 13.108:
For this reason, and because it could also improve the present state of morale in the Prison Service, we recommend that more attention be paid by the Prison Service to training. A greater commitment to training would also help to show that the Prison Service cares about its staff".
The report then says that the Prison Officers Association extols the virtues of the Netherlands prison service and says:
There, staff had systematic training over the first five years of a prison officer's career, and advanced training between the third and fifth year of his service. This provides an indication of just what is possible.
The report then mentions standards elsewhere and the skills that the prison officer is expected to acquire in the course of his or her service.
The private sector will never be able to come within a million miles of the present system. The prospect of its even aspiring to achieve the higher standards laid down by the Woolf report is simply pie in the sky. With support and funding, the public sector could achieve those objectives, but the private sector is inherently incapable of delivering the quality of service that is required.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's argument can be further fortified by Lord Justice Woolf's recommendations on recruitment. The report states in paragraph 13.167:
The Inquiry accepts that it is to the advantage of the management of the Service as a whole for recruitment decisions to be made at Headquarters.

Mr. George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I always prided myself on being a speed reader, but I have not yet absorbed all the report, nor am I likely to do so. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is a speed reader, or perhaps he started from the back of the report and worked his way to the front—we expect that sort of thing from the hon. Gentleman.
Training in the private security industry is farcical. I shall not bore the House with details, but for most companies in the private security industry, training does not exist. Those companies that make an effort may provide a day's training, and companies belonging to the British Security Industry Association are obliged to provide three days' training. However, that obligation is not met by many of the BSIA's members. There are some good, specialised security firms that lay on higher standards of training, but they are the exception. Training is expensive and if companies are in competition, they cannot win against another private security firm that does not attach great importance to training.
The private sector will not try to attain the standards required, because the remand prisons' guards, operatives and security officers will require the same standard of expertise as exists in the prison service today. Will the Home Secretary lay down standards and insist on the private sector attaining those standards? The Home Secretary must be aware that it will be enormously expensive to achieve those standards, and if contracts are let, that must be built into the calculation. I fear that training is so inadequate that companies will fail to achieve any standard that might be set.
The amendment also seeks to establish standards that would enable the private sector to recruit intelligently. That does not simply mean keeping out people with serious criminal records—the negative approach to recruitment. We want the private security industry to be a sufficiently attractive career with a suitable salary to attract the right calibre of men and women to serve in it. Remand prisons need high-calibre recruits. We do not want—as happens in other parts of the private sector security industry—to recruit from the bottom end of the market and impose on those recruits standards that they cannot achieve.
I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that the overwhelming majority of private security firms do not have vetting procedures. As I said in Committee, all that firms want to know is whether the body is warm and can start work the following day. New recruits are then measured up for uniforms and placed in a job the following day or, in many cases, the same day. Many firms do not even go through the pretence of checking references. Better companies have telephone communications systems that can trace back five years in an attempt to contact employers. They then try to trace back a further 15 years by writing to previous employers, but that takes weeks. It is an imperfect system that does not work.
The Government say that they will adopt a system of certification that is better than the hit-and-miss system operated by many firms in the industry at present. It is still


to some extent, although less than in the past, a nudge, nudge, wink, wink approach whereby crime prevention officers are approached or former police officers are on the payroll to give some sign whether the person being hired has a criminal record. That is an appalling way to proceed. What I dislike about the system of certification is that it will be bestowed upon a handful of companies and the rest will have to worry for themselves. We need a system in which all private security firms have access to necessary information, with appropriate safeguards. The Government do not support that view.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation in Northern Ireland is comparable to the one that he suggests in which security firms must be authorised by local authorities?

Mr. George: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The one precedent in the United Kingdom is in Northern Ireland, and it approaches the licensing system that I have been trying to achieve without success. There are precedents in most other countries. It is a matter of some amusement, although it is probably more likely a matter of considerable anger—a combination of motives—why the Government refuse to do what should be done, and establish a statutory licensing authority to vet applicants and companies and lay down minimum standards. As I have said many times, there is anxiety that there are too many people with serious criminal records in the private security industry. In a leaked report two years ago, chief police officers clearly pointed out that problem.
The private security industry has low status and low pay and it is held in low esteem by the police and the public. Its staff turnover is enormous. Lucky companies have a 100 per cent. turnover a year and the bad ones have a 450 per cent. or 500 per cent. turnover a year. Men and women work for £2 an hour, taking home £70 to £80 a week, and they may work 70, 80 or even more hours for the privilege of taking home barely a living wage.
The companies that apply for contracts within that sector will not be the poor companies; they will be the better ones. However, the deficiencies inherent in the weaker, smaller and imperfect companies also tar the better companies. There are not two systems of private security in this country, there is one system, and it is bad and needs to be improved. There is the complacent view that the rubbish firms will not apply for contracts in private prisons and that it will be blue riband companies, building consortia and security firms. Who knows, an American company closely linked to Kentucky Fried Chicken may apply. Who knows what companies are likely to apply? I cannot accept that such companies are different from the rest. The whole system stinks, and it needs to be altered.
The Government are pursuing an important experiment. At least they can partially rescue the system. Ministers have given me some assurances, and I am grateful for them. I hope that, if the system is introduced, certain safeguards will be built in. I do not think that the Government have great confidence in what they propose, because of the many safeguards that they are building into the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield referred to the "flying governor". The Home Office does not have much confidence in the private sector. That is why a Home Office governor can be parachuted in to pick

up the pieces should the system fail. There will be the commissariat system in which the Home Office employee will parallel the private sector manager.
There are many other safeguards. Therefore, I am not quite as alarmed as I was when I initially read the legislation. The system could be partially retrieved if only the Home Office were prepared to lay down rigorous standards. I hope that the lessons that the Government learn from this legislation will eventually lead them to introduce a full-blown system of private security regulation. My criticism is not necessarily of the private security industry but of the system within which it is permitted to operate.

Mr. Sheerman: It is always a pleasure to follow my old friend the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). He is such an acknowledged expert in this matter that it is with a sense of humility that I support his amendment. We know of his vast knowledge of the matter, but I should like to make one small correction. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was worried that his only legacy to posterity in Committee would be the coming of the phrase "the flying governnor". He wanted it put on record that it was not "the flying warden".
9.15 pm
The amendment attempts to introduce regulation of the private security industry, and that is why we support it. It is an immensely important amendment. I should describe the Governments' lack of recommendations as a black hole. I give credit where credit is due—the two Ministers of State did a pretty good job on the brief, but on this matter, they failed to convince. One could see them hovering around, worried about falling into the black hole when we pressed them to say how they would control the private security contractors if there were no standards or regulations.
They had no answers to the questions put by the great authority on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South; they had no answers when we pressed them from the Front Bench. The Government have no way of controlling what would happen if the private sector were allowed a free rein even in the small element of the private remand sector, let alone in an expanded sector.
Last week, I received a telephone call from a reporter who had got hold of a story—I do not know whether it is true—that the Ministry of Defence was talking about arming the private security people who guard our defence installations. We must make absolutely sure that our defence establishments are secure from terrorist and other attacks. If the Ministry of Defence, with all its security, cannot get it right and ensure that standards are high and that a level of competence is delivered by the contractor at the agreed price, what hope is there that the Home Office will get it right in relation to imprisonment? There are very real problems.
This is an immensely important issue. The Opposition fundamentally oppose the introduction of privatised prisons, but if they are to be introduced, far more effective mechanisms are needed to regulate the private security industry. Clause 71 and schedule 8 are not sufficient protection.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South that much of the private security industry has an appalling record. That does not apply to all companies; they are not all tarred with the same brush. There are some


acceptable and reputable companies, but the industry is huge, employing 150,000 or perhaps 200,000 people—twice as many as the regular police force. There is a notorious lack of vetting of staff, derisory training of employees and appalling levels of pay. There are no minimum standards.
However, in a competitive free-for-all, the bad companies affect the good. Bad companies with non-existent training and the lowest levels of pay put in the lowest bids, which undercut those of their more reputable counterparts. To obtain contracts, good companies are forced to reduce standards. How will Ministers stop shoddy companies replacing better companies?
I remember an occasion in Committee when we were discussing our experience in local government. I gave the example of being forced by a particular piece of legislation—I cannot remember which Government introduced it—to start taking competitive tenders for all our housing contracts. What happened? Who saved money? Time and time again, we walked into a trap of accepting the lowest tender from a fringe builder who went bankrupt halfway through the job. We had to get someone else in to finish the work. That is what happens with competitive tendering.
One has only to look at the experience of the Ministry of Defence to see the dangers involved. For years, the Opposition have argued that the private security industry must be properly regulated, and that self-regulation will not do. We need a system allowing for minimum standards of training and, in the case of prisoner custody officers, we would expect that training to be very rigorous. We need a proper vetting system and adequate wages. One does not get quality unless one pays a decent wage.
On 31 January, when we discussed the matter in Committee, the Minister said:
I am interested in all the hon. Gentleman's comments. I shall seriously consider what he said and try to ensure that we have the right standards and protection to deal with private sector contractors. We shall examine the circumstances carefully so as to protect the interests of the public and of the Government and Home Secretary of the day."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 31 January 1991, c. 611.]
What conclusions has the Minister reached? What titbits has she hidden away? If she does not accept the amendment, the Bill will go to the other place with no provision for control over who runs the private sector side of the operation. This is a dangerous part of the Bill. Without control, private security has no future in which any of us can have confidence.

Mrs. Rumbold: I was sad to hear the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) say that he could not give us one of his long and discursive speeches about private security. I enjoyed them very much in Committee, and I was looking forward to another episode.

Mr. Michael: An epic.

Mrs. Rumbold: Yes, an epic. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of these matters, to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred, and I understand the concerns that he expressed in arguing for the amendment.
We discussed the matter at considerable length in Committee. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield and I have said before, clause 71 and schedule 8 provide for the certification of a prisoner custody officer. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have to be satisfied that a prospective prisoner custody officer is a fit and proper

person to perform the relevant functions and—most important—that he has been trained to an approved standard before he gains such a certificate. That is an exceedingly important measure, which I wholeheartedly support.
In addition, there is another provision to ensure proper protection for those who undertake such important tasks: the contractors themselves will use selection procedures. If, at any point, it turns out that a prison custody officer is not a fit and proper person, the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to revoke a certificate. If an unsuitable person should, by any remote chance, slip through the net, that will reflect upon the contractor who employed him or her.
It has always been clearly understood that, if any aspect of the prison custody service is contracted out, accountability in respect of public safety and for the way in which prisoners are treated will in no way be diminished. As I said several times in Committee, that is very important. The responsibility will continue to be discharged, albeit in a different way. Accountability remains, simply because the Home Secretary could not afford to place the prisoners in the custody of people who are not totally respectable and reliable.
There is no question of the Home Secretary allowing less than satisfactory firms to be responsible for employing those who will carry out prisoner custody tasks. The companies that we have come across up to now have all been major long-established companies with high reputations. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend would wish to deal with any companies other than those with the highest qualifications.

Mr. Sheerman: That is exactly the point that I was addressing. The first issue is how we can decide on the standards and the criteria. What is the mechanism and the structure? Who will authenticate the process and ensure that certification works and delivers? Secondly, does not the right hon. Lady realise that, once we are involved in competitive tenderiing, it will no longer be the reputable, the nice or the quality people whose names will come across her desk, because once she starts to exclude people on competitive tendering grounds, she will find that she has involved both herself and the Government in a civil court action that will open the door to all the other people—rightly, in civil legal terms—and she will be forced to take all comers?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Huddersfield is recalling his local government days, when we contracted out repairs on council houses. That was one of the first areas of local government work in which the private sector became involved. Of course, everyone who wished to had a perfect right to tender for those contracts and nobody is saying that that would not necessarily be the case here. However, what happened in local government—I am confident that this is what will happen in this case, building on the experience of local government—is that all firms will be looked at carefully to ensure that they comply with all the requirements.
As was the case with local government, the cheapest firm is not necessarily always chosen now. Some local authorities, however, did not take responsibility for ensuring that their ratepayers got the best value for money. When considering firms for private sector contracts, it was, and is, important to ensure that the best services—the


most cost-effective and the most efficient services—were chosen and they were not necessarily always from the cheapest contractors.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) well knows what happened in local government, because he too has experience in that world, and he knows perfectly well that it is important to choose quality as well as the lowest price.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a difference between mending windows for a local authority and looking after prisoners? Does she accept that there is a contradiction between the Government's determination to regulate and to authorise security firms in Northern Ireland and their determination not to do so for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Rumbold: Of course contracting out local government services is different. Nevertheless, local government serves a useful purpose when drawing an analogy with the kind of contracts that we are looking at for the prison service, and I prefer to keep to that analogy for the time being.
On the issue of public safety and the way in which prisoners are treated, the Home Secretary will also need to be satisfied that the contractors have the necessary financial backing and management resources to take on such contracts. Large sums of money will be involved. We are talking about multi-million-pound contracts, which will certainly be beyond the reach of any of the so-called "fly-by-night" firms about which the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Walsall, South have great concern.
Having reconsidered these arguments and aired them yet again—we discussed them thoroughly in Committee, when I undertook to ascertain whether we could go further than we had at that stage to meet hon. Members' concerns—I hope that what I have said reaffirms that we have done that. I can give an undertaking that we shall be very open about the standards required of contractors, especially in respect of training, about which I know full well the hon. Member for Walsall, South is particularly concerned. too regard training as an important issue. When we come to consider what should be required for certification and the work that the contractors must carry out, we shall certainly give very careful consideration to what Woolf has to say.

Mr. George: Despite the assurances that have been given, I feel that this amendment should be put to the vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 263.

Division No. 80]
[9.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bellotti, David


Allen, Graham
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Alton, David
Benton, Joseph


Archer, Rt Hon Peter 
Bidwell, Sydney


Armstrong, Hilary
Blunkett, David 


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Boyes, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Caborn, Richard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Battle, John
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Beggs, Roy
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis





Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McAllion, John


Cartwright, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Ian


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clay, Bob
McFall, John


Clelland, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
McLeish, Henry


Corbett, Robin
Maclennan, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
McMaster, Gordon


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Darling, Alistair
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eadie, Alexander
Morgan, Rhodri


Eastham, Ken
Morley, Elliot


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mullin, Chris


Fisher, Mark
Nellist, Dave


Flynn, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Hara, Edward


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fyfe, Maria
Parry, Robert


Galbraith, Sam
Patchett, Terry


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Golding, Mrs Llin
Radice, Giles


Gordon, Mildred
Randall, Stuart


Gould, Bryan
Redmond, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Reid, Dr John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Richardson, Jo


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Robertson, George


Grocott, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Hardy, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rooney, Terence


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Henderson, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hinchliffe, David
Ruddock, Joan


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hood, Jimmy
Short, Clare


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Illsley, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Ingram, Adam
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Turner, Dennis


Kennedy, Charles
Vaz, Keith


Lambie, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Leadbitter, Ted
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Leighton, Ron
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Litherland, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wilson, Brian


Loyden, Eddie
Winnick, David






Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Young, David (Bolton SE)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Favell, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fookes, Dame Janet


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Amos, Alan
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Arbuthnot, James
Franks, Cecil


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Freeman, Roger


Ashby, David
French, Douglas


Atkinson, David
Gale, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gardiner, Sir George


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gill, Christopher


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bendall, Vivian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gregory, Conal


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grist, Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Ground, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hague, William


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hannam, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Christopher


Bright, Graham
Hayes, Jerry


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayward, Robert


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burns, Simon
Hill, James


Butler, Chris
Hind, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howarth, Alan (Strafd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carrington, Matthew
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carttiss, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cash, William
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Irvine, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Irving, Sir Charles


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cormack, Patrick
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
Kilfedder, James


Curry, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knowles, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knox, David


Dicks, Terry
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dover, Den
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dunn, Bob
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Eggar, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Fallon, Michael
Macfarlane, Sir Neil





MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maclean, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Matins, Humfrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfleld)


Mans, Keith
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedllng)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mitchell, Sir David
Sumberg, David


Moate, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Needham, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nelson, Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trippier, David


Norris, Steve
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patnick, Irvine
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walters, Sir Dennis


Portillo, Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Watts, John


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sayeed, Jonathan



Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. Tim Boswell.


Shelton, Sir William

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 118, in page 43, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—

'(4) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall have effect as if there were omitted from subsection (2) above either—
(a) paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph; or
(b) paragraph (b) and the said word "and" or
(c) the words from "which", in the first place where it occurs, to the end of paragraph (b).

(5) No order shall be made under subsection (4) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 67

OFFICERS OF CONTRACTED OUT PRISONS

Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 43, line 35, at end insert
('; and (c) a monitor, who shall be a crown servant, appointed by the Secretary of State.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 105, in page 43, line 41. after 'director', insert 'or monitor'.
No. 106, in page 44, line 5, leave out 'controller' and insert 'monitor'.

Mr. Randall: The purpose of this amendment is simple. We are concerned about the position of the controller as defined in the Bill. We understand that the controller is to exercise disciplinary power at the same time as he is to report to the Secretary of State on the running and administration of the prison. Although we are happy that a Crown servant, the controller, rather than the private director, will exercise disciplinary powers, we believe that he should not at the same time report to the Secretary of State on the running and administration of the system. In reality, he would be reporting on himself, since the exercise of disciplinary powers is integral to the running of the prison.
9.45 pm
The amendment separates the two functions by introducing a monitor who is responsible for reporting to the Secretary of State on the day-to-day running of the prison, including the activities of the controller, who is simply there to exercise his disciplinary powers—no more, no less. We believe that such a separation of functions represents the appropriate way in which to proceed. It is wrong in principle for the controller to report, in part on his own activities.

Mrs. Rumbold: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I am a little surprised at his argument for splitting the controller's duties, because I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman believed that having a controller in the private sector represented an additional responsibility that did not exist in the public sector. I am therefore surprised to learn that he now proposes that we should have not only two people, a director and a controller, but a third person. I am not convinced of the logic of that argument.
I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but his suggestion for splitting responsibilities between the controller and a monitor is rather superfluous. His amendment is unnecessary and I have little sympathy for it.
The amendment does not add anything to the responsibilities of a controller, who I believe is the adequate person to monitor the work of a private sector prison in co-operation with the director, but with direct responsibility to the Home Secretary. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Randall: I listened with interest to what the Minister said about what we consider to be a dilemma in the reporting structure, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 76

CASH LIMITS FOR PROBATION SERVICES

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in page 50, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).
The amendment would delete paragraph (a), which amends the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. That paragraph removes the obligation to provide "sufficient probation officers" and in its place it substitutes the words,
such number of probation officers as may be agreed between them and the responsible authority to be a sufficient number of such officers".
If the Bill goes through as it stands, it will require the probation committee and the local authority to come to an agreement on the number of probation officers needed——

Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that we all have difficulty following the order of amendments when dealing with such a technical——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know what the hon. Gentleman is about to say. I have just been told that the hon. Gentleman's amendment was accepted. I was going to put it at the end of this debate, but since the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter now, I shall put the amendment formally with my apologies.

Clause 74

INTERPRETATION OF PART IV

Amendment made: No. 119, in page 47, leave out line 8.—[Mr. John Greenway]

Mr. Michael: The Minister appears to have been consumed by the confusion and was not listening, so I shall start again.
The amendment is intended to straighten out an anomaly in the Bill, in which we find the curious suggestion by the Government that words in the 1973 Act which show a need to have sufficient probation officers in an area should be substituted by a requirement for a probation committee to agree with the local authority the number of officers required in an area. That is nonsense.
I approach the matter with some neutrality, having been chairman of a local authority finance committee and a member of a probation committee—so I can claim to be well informed. My information leads me to suggest that the Bill is nonsense as it stands.
Under the new regime that we have, partly as a result of the Bill and partly as a result of developments initiated by the Minister and his colleagues, the Home Office will decide the finances needed within a formula for a particular probation area. The Home Office will offer advice on the numbers required. The Home Office will determine 80 per cent. of the finances in any event, and the local authority will have to fall into line. In any case, the local authority discusses the budget with the probation committee year by year, and will continue to do so.
The Central Council of Probation Committees understood, following discussions with the Home Office Ministers and officials, that, once cash limits were set, as they will be in future, on probation committee budgets, committees will have the discretion to determine their own priorities and resource needs, including staffing, within the budget and subject to all the other restrictions. For instance, there will be regular Home Office inspections,


including a study of staffing levels in probation committees, which are accountable in Home Office statistics and in their own annual reports.
Our amendment seeks to delete the requirement in paragraph (a) because it is at best meaningless and at worst a recipe for pointless disagreement between probation committees and local authorities. It appears to give some control to local authorities, but in fact it does no such thing. If the Minister wants to delete the words "sufficient probation officers" from the 1973 Act, let him admit as much and do. I have had private conversations and I have corresponded with the Minister on these matters, and I am a little disappointed that the provision is still in the Bill at this stage. I had hoped that the Minister would have moved a Government amendment by now to dispose of the problem.
In Committee, the Minister suggested that subsection 76(2) did not change the role of local authorities or of committees, but that is precisely what it does and why it is necessary to remove it from the Bill. It is a drafting mistake, and even at this late stage I urge the Minister to listen to the voice of reason as well to the voice of experience in the form of the Central Council of Probation Committees and other bodies. He has made a mistake; he should accept that he has and tidy up the Bill.

Sir Anthony Durant: I have had some difficulty finding a point at which to intervene today, and I am slightly off course in the debate on this amendment—except in so far as it relates to probation officers.
Probation officers in my constituency have been to see me, anxious about their role in the probation service. They believe that the Bill may damage their role with their clients. They fear that they will be allocated the judicial role of punishment rather than the remedial role of helping their clients.
I hope that the Minister will reassure me that probation officers' vital role will be carefully considered and that, when dealing with clients, they will not be allocated a role strictly to do with punishment at the expense of the remedial side of their work.

Mr. John Patten: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) that the Government envisage a careful expansion in the probation service until the financial year 1993–94. The autumn statement provides a useful background for the amendment. It proposes the introduction of more than 800 new probation officers over the next three years—the biggest single injection of officers of both sexes that has ever occurred—as well as a 25 per cent. increase in overall expenditure on the probation service in the years up to 1993–94, taking inflation into account: the biggest single cash increase that the service has ever received.
We want the probation service to change its present role. We want it to develop its considerable skills in confronting offending behaviour and making offenders face up to what they have done, so that they do not do it again. That means exercising control as well as care—caring authority, as it were. Vigorous, forward-looking bodies such as the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, and that valuable organisation, the National Association of Senior Probation Officers, are already gearing themselves up to the task.
My hon. Friend's Reading constituency faces a challenge. I value the work of the probation service in Berkshire: under its excellent chief probation officer, it is one of the best probation services in the country. It will have formidable opportunity to do what probation officers do best—stop people offending again.
I have invested a good deal of time in arguing, in Committee and in the corridors, with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) about clause 76 and the issue that he has raised tonight. I pay tribute to the knowledge that he has acquired, both as the former chairman of a council finance committee and as one who has served in other parts of the criminal justice system. The trouble is that he and I cannot agree on the meaning of words. Sometimes, however much we respect someone else's judgment, we must agree to disagree. The hon. Gentleman and I have engaged in a lengthy correspondence: our word processors have been at it hammer and tongs over the past three or four weeks. I intend to place in the Library the full correspondence, complete with marginalia, so that posterity can judge which of us was right.
The intention of clause 76(2) is not to usurp the role of committees in deciding how many probation officers are needed, but simply to allow local authorities to object to expenditure on them, and to allow either the committee or the local authority, in default of agreement, to seek a determination from the Secretary of State. The subsection is necessary to prevent the cash limit from becoming de facto a precept on the paying authority. Thus expenditure on probation officers will be brought into line with existing arrangements relating to other items of current expenditure.
Local authorities are already able to object to many other items of expenditure in committees' estimates—on a range of non-probation officer staff issues, on accommodation and on equipment. There seems to be no good reason for continuing to single out expenditure on probation officers for special treatment when they now add up to only about half the staff in the probation service.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Bill. Clause 76 is extremely well drafted, as are all the rest. My interpretation is absolutely clear, and the amendment—well-meaning though it is—would not improve it in any way.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) made a valid point. I am glad that he used the excuse of the amendment to mention the work of probation officers. From my knowledge of their work, I agree with his comments. He led the Minister astray a little into commenting on the probation service in general, but who can blame him for that? The problem is simple—the Minister is wrong.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Michael: For one moment, I thought that you, Mr. Speaker, had intervened on my suggestion that the Minister was wrong. I realise now that you were not questioning that.
The Minister is wrong to say that paragraph (a) is necessary to ensure that the cash limit does not become a


precept. A local authority must agree the budget with the probation committee. It is not, as the Minister suggested, a question of agreeing expenditure on probation officers, which is already provided for in the agreement on the budget. The paragraph says that the local authority must agree the number of people that the probation committee will employ.
I am afraid that the Minister, despite the considerable good will that he has shown my efforts to persuade him that he is wrong, has got it wrong yet again. I am delighted that he is to place our correspondence in the Library so that the great British public and hon. Members will be able to read both sides of our exchanges and realise that amendment No. 92 is correct. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, so that the other place can agree it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 77

INFORMATION AS TO FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF DECISIONS

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 51, line 10, after 'of, insert '—(a)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 101 and 102.

Mr. Patten: I remind the House that, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) moved new clause 4 last Wednesday, which was defeated on a Division, I said that the Government were bent on tabling their own amendments to achieve the same ends, to introduce matters of gender and race and to make clear the importance of avoiding discrimination in the criminal justice system. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Sheerman: We welcome the Government's decision to make this little concession on race. Amendment No. 101 allows for ethnic monitoring not only of court decisions but of persons engaged in the administration of justice.
Amendment No. 101 refers to sex discrimination. We should recognise our important achievement in persuading the Government to act. We are having our cake and eating it again, but we are pleased that we pushed them sufficiently to make them go away and think about it.
It is important, however, to stress that the amendment goes only a little way towards achieving our objective. The anti-discrimination statement which we unsuccessfully tried to incorporate in the Bill is important. In the debate last week, the Minister generously agreed to meet a deputation, including hon. Members from both sides of the House, and to discuss over a cup of tea——

Mr. Patten: The kettle is always boiling.

Mr. Sheerman: If the kettle is always boiling, will the Minister see a deputation from the black lobby, who are concerned to put their case on the need for a declaratory clause?

Mr. Patten: I often see representatives of the ethnic minority groups and have done so throughout my years at the Home Office. I have seen the black lawyers and others, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring another group as part of an all-party delegation to discuss the issues., the kettle is on the hob.

Mr. Sheerman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the willingness that he has shown. Several people are involved, such as those associated with the Church and those associated with the law. It would not be an unmanageable delegation. Those people have asked me to put this case. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, last week the community and race relations unit of the British Council of Churches pointed out the need for a declaratory clause and stressed the importance of a statutory commitment in making the position plain to minority communities.

Mr. Patten: I have written to that body to discuss these issues directly, and have been in communication by correspondence with several organisations.

Mr. Sheerman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Now that he has accepted the point about a deputation coming for tea to talk about the importance of this issue, I believe that it will not be too late in another place to put that provision into the Bill. We debated this matter in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was not entirely persuaded, but he went halfway. This declaration would reaffirm some positive elements in people's views on what the criminal justice system is like.
The Minister knows that what people feel about the criminal justice system is important. If I may draw a parallel with the fear of crime, it is important to affirm to people that the fear of crime is much greater than the reality. In the same way, we believe that it is important to affirm to ethnic minorities that the reality of racism in the criminal justice system is not so great as it is believed by their communities to be. The declaratory aspect of the Bill would go a long way to reassuring them. I accept that the Minister will keep a relatively open mind on that issue.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 101, in page 51, line 12, at end insert
'or
(b) facilitating the avoidance by such persons of discrimination against any person on the ground of race or sex or any other improper ground.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 84

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 52, line 33, leave out '20(1)'.

No. 21, in page 52, line 34, at end insert
'; and section 20(1A) above and, in so far as relating to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, Schedule 11 to this Act extend to Scotland only.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

New Schedule

PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR SECTION 15 OF 1965 ACT

Variation and discharge of supervision orders.

15.—(1) If while a supervision order is in force in respect of a supervised person it appears to a relevant court, on the application of the supervisor or the supervised person, that it is appropriate to make an order under this subsection, the court may make an order discharging the supervision order or varying it—
(a) by cancelling any requirement included in it in pursuance of section 12, 12A, 12AA, 12B or 12C or section 18(2)(b) of this Act; or
(b) by inserting in it (either in addition to or in substitution for any of its provisions) any provision


which could have been included in the order if the court had then had power to make it and were exercising the power.

(2) The powers of variation conferred by subsection (1) above do not include power—
(a) to insert in the supervision order, after the expiration of three months beginning with the date when the order was originally made, a requirement in pursuance of section 12B(1) of this Act, unless it is in substitution for such a requirement already in the order; or
(b) to insert in the supervision order a requirement in pursuance of section 12A(3)(b) of this Act in respect of any day which falls outside the period of three months beginning with the date when the order was originally made.

(3) If while a supervision order made under section 7(7) of this Act is in force in respect of a person it is proved to the satisfaction of a relevant court, on the application of the supervisor, that the supervised person has failed to comply with any requirement included in the supervision order in pursuance of section 12, 12A, 12AA, 12C or 18(2)(b) of this Act, the court—
(a) whether or not it also makes an order under subsection (1) above, may order him to pay a fine of an amount not exceeding £1,000 or subject to section 16A(1) of this Act, may make an attendance centre order in respect of him; or
(b) in the case of a person who has attained the age of eighteen, may (if it also discharges the supervision order) make an order imposing on him any punishment, other than a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, which it could have imposed on him if it—
(i) had then had power to try him for the offence in consequence of which the supervision order was made; and
(ii) had convicted him in the exercise of that power.

(4) If while a supervision order is in force in respect of a person it is proved to the court under subsection (3) above that the supervised person has failed to comply with any requirement included in the supervision order in pursuance of section 12A(3)(a) of this Act directing the supervised person to participate in specified activities, the court may, if it also discharges the supervision order, make an order imposing on him any sentence which it could have imposed on him if it—
(a) had then had power to try him for the offence in consequence of which the supervision order was made; and
(b) had convicted him in the exercise of that power:

(5) In a case falling within subsection (3)(b) or (4) above where the offence in question is of a kind which the court has no power to try, or has no power to try without appropriate consents, the sentence imposed by virtue of that provision—
(a) shall not exceed that which any court having power to try such an offence could have imposed in respect of it, and
(b) where the case falls within subsection (3)(b) above and the sentence is a fine, shall not in any event exceed £5,000; and
(c) where the case falls within subsection (4) above, shall not in any event exceed a custodial sentence for a term of six months and a fine of £5,000.

(6) A court may not make an order by virtue of subsection (4) above unless the court which made the supervision order made a statement under subsection (1) of sectiion 12D of this Act; and for the purposes of this subsection a certificate under that section shall be evidence of the making of the statement to which it relates.

(7) Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (fixing of certain fines by reference to units) shall apply—
(a) for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) above, as if the failure to comply with the requirement were a summary offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale; and
(b) for the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (4) above as if the failure to comply with the

requirement were a summary offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 5 on that scale;
and a fine imposed under any of those provisions shall be deemed for the purposes of any enactment to be a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.

(8) In dealing with a supervised person under subsection (3) or (4) above, the court shall take into account the extent to which that person has complied with the requirements of the supervision order.

(9) If a medical practitioner by whom or under whose direction a supervised person is being treated for his mental condition in pursuance of a requirement included in a supervision order by virtue of section 12B(1) of this Act is unwilling to continue to treat or direct the treatment of the supervised person or is of opinion—
(a) that the treatment would be continued beyond the period specified in that behalf in the order; or
(b) that the supervised person needs different treatment; or
(c) that he is not susceptible to treatment; or
(d) that he does not require further treatment,
the practitioner shall make a report in writing to that effect to the supervisor.

(10) On receiving a report under subsection (9) above, the supervisor shall refer it to a relevant court; and on such a reference, the court may make an order cancelling or varying the requirement.

(11) In this section "relevant court" means—
(a) in the case of a supervised person who has attained the age of eighteen, a youth court;
(b) in the case of a supervised person who has attained the age, a magistrate's court other than a youth court.

(12) The provisions of this section shall have effect subject to the provisions of section 16 of this Act.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS OF 1973 ACT

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 56, line 24, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 29 and insert—
'(a) it has consulted a probation officer; and
(b) it is satisfied that it is feasible to secure compliance with the requirement.'.

No. 24, in page 56, line 46, leave out 'probationer' and insert 'offender'.

No. 25, in page 57, line 42, at end insert—

'Extension of requirements for sexual offenders

'3A.—(1) If the court so directs in the case of an offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence—
(a) sub-paragraphs (4) and (6) of paragraph 2 above; and
(b) sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 3 above,
shall each have effect as if for the reference to 60 days there were substituted a reference to such greater number of days as may be specified in the direction.

(2) In this paragraph "sexual offence" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.".

No. 26, in page 59, line 4, leave out 'section 10' and insert 'that section'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 59, line 8, leave out from 'satisfied' to 'his' in line 9 and insert—
'(a) that the offender is dependent on drugs or alcohol;
(b) that his dependency caused or contributed to the offence in respect of which the order is proposed to be made; and
(c) that'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 28 to 34.

Mr. Patten: The amendments make two substantive changes to the provisions in schedule 1 on the treatment for drug and alcohol misuse. Those changes were recommended to me by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs criminal justice working group and were pressed on me powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Butler: The Government have proved themselves a listening Government in this respect, but I can give them only eight marks out of 10 for the amendment. In Standing Committee I referred to the use of "dependence" and "dependent". The Government seem to be trying to resolve the problem by including the definition of a propensity towards the misuse of drugs or alcohol within the definition of "dependence". I am not completely satisfied with that.
In 1982 the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended the use of the phrase "problem drug taker" rather than a range of terms including "drug dependent" or "drug addict". The advisory council on alcoholism recommended the use of the term "problem drinker".
If we do not use the terms "problem drinker" or "problem drug taker", a person may be excluded from treatment who does not use drugs or alcohol habitually, but who may use them regularly. Similarly, some people use stimulants only at the weekends. They might not be taken within the definition of drug-dependent, but they may nevertheless have a drug-related problem. Legislation should take into account the accepted terminology recommended by the Government's advisory bodies, accepted by the Government and which has formed the basis for the provision of treatment in the community.
With regard to amendment No. 32, I am not sure why sub-paragraph (5) appears in schedule 1. It is difficult to see what additional powers or authority it provides or why it is required. If there are additional grounds for its inclusion, it is riot clear why it should apply specifically to residential provision. There is an argument that it should apply to any change in the treatment requirement, not just to one type of treatment.
I realise that I have made a technical point and I should be happy for my right hon. Friend the Minister to respond to me in writing. I suspect that my point about amendment No. 27 may be taken up in another place, failing satisfaction here.

Mr. Tim Ralhbone: I do not wish to detain the House on what other hon. Members must consider to be a small point. However, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) said. My hon. Friend's point is extremely important in the context of drugs, which remain a tragic problem in our communities. The whole thrust of the Bill is absolutely in the right direction in advocating treatment rather than prison sentences. It is terribly important that we take to heart those points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South.
I urge the Government to re-examine sub-paragraph (9) of amendment No. 32. That sub-paragraph seems to allow a combination order that would involve the imposition of a community service order for not less than 40 and not more than 100 hours in addition to the probation order, and a requirement to undertake treatment for problem drinking and drug taking.
The difficulty is that an individual with a drug problem has a very serious problem that requires treatment. The concentration should be on the supervision and completion of the specified treatment. There is a potential difficulty in undertaking a community service order because of that drug problem. For such an individual, finding appropriate service is likely to be extremely difficult.
That does not mean that it is not inappropriate to impose a combination order but it would be difficult to expect a combination order to be imposed that also had a treatment requirement attached to it.

Mr. Patten: I shall respond first to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), whose long-standing interest in and authority on these issues we all respect. We set great store by the combination order. It may be difficult and challenging for the probation service, and the voluntary organisations that sometimes assist it—to which I pay tribute—to find suitable community service for the particularly chaotic characters who are sometimes addicted to drugs and alcohol or who, from time to time, go on drug and alcohol binges, but who are not clinically dependent.
10.15 pm
It is important that people who are not trading in hard or soft drugs, but who are the unfortunate and sad misusers of those substances, receive some form of sanction or punishment to replace a prison sentence. I do not want such people to go to prison, any more than others do. I want drug offenders who trade and traffic in drugs to go to prison for a long time, and have their assets and those of their families confiscated. We must find a way of pursuing those assets beyond the grave if the defendants inconveniently die before convictions are brought.
It is critical for courts to have combination orders available to them to ensure that, when a sentence is handed down by the court, it means something to the offender and the community, and people do not effectively get away with breaking the law. I appreciate the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes.
As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) made some interesting points. He wondered why paragraph (7) was included in schedule 1. It provides for
the offender to receive part of his treatment as a resident patient in an institution or place notwithstanding that the institution or place is not one which could have been specified for that purpose in the probation order.
I can clear that up now without having to go to the unnecessary lengths of writing letters, although the matter may be examined in another place. There may be places that would not normally be specified in a probation order, to which we would want such people to be directed for treatment specifically linked to their condition, either as a dependent person or someone who indulges in what are known in the trade as alcoholic binges or drug abuse.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 33 enable a requirement to undergo treatment to be included in a probation order when an offender either is dependent on drugs or alcohol or has a tendency to misuse them. Everything does not hinge on dependency itself. That "either/or" policy must be linked to a contribution to the offence. At present, the criterion in schedule 1 refers simply to the defendant being dependent on drugs or alcohol. The amendments will deal


with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South. I welcome the chance to answer his questions.
The amendments ensure that the requirement to undergo treatment is used only when the misuse of drugs or alcohol is directly related to the offence. That will cover cases where the person was not clinically dependent on alcohol—hence the debate over the use of "dependence"—but had indulged in a drinking binge that led to the commission of crime.
I hope that the House will feel able to accept the amendments after my clarification of those points.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 59, line 14, leave out
'duly qualified medical practitioner'
and insert
'person having the necessary qualifications or experience'.

No. 29, in line 18, leave out 'patient'.

No. 30, in line 20, leave out 'patient'.

No. 31, in line 22, leave out
'duly qualified medical practitioner'
and insert
'person having the necessary qualifications or experience'.

No. 32, in line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—

'(4) A court shall not by virtue of this paragraph include in a probation order a requirement that the offender shall submit to treatment for his dependency on drugs or alcohol unless it is satisfied that arrangements have been made for the treatment intended to be specified in the order (including arrangements for the reception of the offender where he is to be required to submit to treatment as a resident).

(5) While the offender is under treatment as a resident in pursuance of a requirement of the probation order, the probation officer responsible for his supervision shall carry out the supervision to such extent only as may be necessary for the purpose of the revocation or amendment of the order.

(6) Where the person by whom or under whose direction an offender is being treated for dependency on drugs or alcohol in pursuance of a probation order is of the opinion that part of the treatment can be better or more conveniently given in or at an institution or place which—
(a) is not specified in the order; and
(b) is one in or at which the treatment of the offender will be given by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualifications or experience. he may, with the consent of the offender, make arrangements for him to be treated accordingly.

(7) Such arrangements as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) above may provide for the offender to receive part of his treatment as a resident in an institution or place notwithstanding that the institution or place is not one which could have been specified for that purpose in the probation order.

(8) Where any such arrangements as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) above are made for the treatment of an offender—
(a) the person by whom the arrangements are made shall give notice in writing to the probation officer responsible for the supervision of the offender, specifying the institution or place in or at which the treatment is to be carried out; and
(b) the treatment provided for by the arrangements shall be deemed to be treatment to which he is required to submit in pursuance of the probation order.

(9) The provisions of this paragraph shall apply in relation to a probation order made or amended by virtue of section 10 of this Act only so far as indicated in subsection (3) of that section, and except as provided by this paragraph or that section a court shall not include in a probation order a requirement that the offenderr shall submit to treatment for his dependency on drugs or alcohol.

(10) In this paragraph the reference to the offender being dependent on drugs or alcohol includes a reference to his having a propensity towards the misuse of drugs or alcohol, and references to his dependency on drugs or alcohol shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 2

ENFORCEMENT ETC. OF COMMUNITY ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 61, line 14, after 'him' insert—
'(bb) where the relevant order is a probation order and the case is one to which section 17 of the 1982 Act applies, it may make an order under that section requiring him to attend at an attendance centre;'.
No. 33, in page 65, line 7 at end insert—
'(3) in this paragraph and paragraph 14 below, references to the offender's dependency on drugs or alcohol include reference to his propensity towards the misuse of drugs or alcohol.'.
No. 34, in line 9 after 'practitioner', insert 'or other person'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 3

INCREASE OF CERTAIN MAXIMA

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 66, line 36 leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 66.

No. 43, in page 69, line 8, column 1 leave out '15(2A)' and insert '15(3)(a)'.

No. 44, in page 69,line 8, column 2 leave out '£200' and insert £1,000'.

No. 45, in Page 69, line 10, column 1 leave out '15(4) and (4B)' and insert '15(5)(b) and (c)'.

No. 46, in page 69, line 10, column 2 leave out '£1,000 and'.

No. 47, in page 70, line 3 leave out paragraph 1.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 5

NOTICES OF TRANSFER:

PROCEDURE IN LIEU OF COMMITTAL

Amendment made: No. 120, in page 75, line 39. at end insert—

'Avoidance of delay

6A.—(1) Where a notice of transfer has been given in relation to any case—
(a) the Crown Court before which the case is to be tried; and
(b) any magistrates' court which exercises any functions under paragraphs 2 or 3 above or section 20(4) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 in relation to the case,
shall, in exercising any of its powers in relation to the case, have regard to the desirability of avoiding prejudice to the welfare of any relevant child witness that may be occasioned by unnecessary delay in bringing the case to trial.

(2) In this paragraph "child" has the same meaning as in section 43 of this Act and "relevant child witness" means a child who will be called as a witness at the trial and who is alleged to be a person against whom the offence was committed or to have witnessed its commission.'.—[ Mr. John Patten. ]

Schedule 9

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 48, in page 81, line 34, at end insert—

'5A. In section 12D(1)(ii) of the 1969 Act (duty of court to state in certain cases that requirement is in place of custodial


sentence), paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect and for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(c)the offence of which he has been convicted, or the combination of that offence and one other offence associated with it (within the meaning given by section 1(7) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991), was so serious that only a supervision order including such a requirement of a custodial sentence can be justified for the offence;".

No. 121, in page 81, leave out lines 35 to 40.

No. 50, in page 81, line 40, at end insert—

'6A—(1) In subsection (4) of section 16 of that Act (provisions supplementary to section 15), for the words "a court" there shall be substituted the words "a youth court".
(2) In subsection (6)(b) of that section, for the words "subsection (5)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (10)".
(3) In subsection (10) of that section, for the words "paragraph (b) of subsection (2A) and paragraph (a) of subsection (4)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (a) of subsection (3)".

(6B).—(1) In subsection (1) of section 16A of that Act (application of sections 17 to 19 of the 1982 Act), for the words "section 15(2A)(b) and (4)(a)" there shall be substituted the words "section 15(3)(a).
(2) In subsection (2) of that section, for the words "each of those paragraphs" there shall be substituted the words "section 15(3)(a) of this Act".'.

No. 122, in page 83, line 8, at end insert—

'(2) In paragraph 8(1) of that Schedule, after the words "any person" there shall be inserted the words

"and to make reports on such matters".'.

No. 51, in page 84, line 5, leave out 'In section 143(2)' and insert

'.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 143'.

No. 52, in page 84, line 6, leave out from 'provisions)', to end of line 7 and insert

'paragraph (i) shall cease to have effect and after paragraph (o) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(p) section 48(2) and (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (recognizance from parents or guardians);".'.

No. 53, in page 84, line 7, at end insert—

'(2) For subsection (3) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) In subsection (1) above the 'relevant date' means—
(a) the date of the coming into force of section 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (increase of certain maxima); or
(b) where the sums specified in a provision mentioned in subsection (2) above have been substituted by an order under subsection (1) above, the date of that order.".'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 10

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 88, line 43 at end insert—

'Attendance centre orders

12A.—(1) Section 51(4) of this Act shall not apply in relation to pre-existing failures to attend in accordance with an attendance centre or pre-existing breaches of rules made under section 16(3) of the 1982 Act.

(2) In this paragraph "pre-existing" means occurring or committed before the commencement of section 51(4) of this Act.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 11

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 90, column 3 leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
'In section 7, in subsection (7), the words "is found guilty of homicide" and paragraph (c), and subsection (7B) and (7C).'.

No. 56, in page 90, line 11, column 3 at end insert—



'Section 12D(1)(ii)(a).'.

No. 123, in page 90, line 11, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 12AA, subsections (7), (8) and (12).'

No. 35, in page 90, line 54, at end insert—


'1975 c. 21
The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975
In section 403, the proviso to subsection (4); and in subsection (6) the words "the proviso to subsection (4) of this section shall not apply, but".'.

No. 57, in page 90, line 55, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 12, in the entry relating to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, paragraph 3.'.

No. 58, in page 91, line 5, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 37(1A).'.

No. 59, in page 91, line 9, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 143(2)(i).'.

No. 60, in page 91, line 19, column 3, at end insert
'In section 18(6)(6), the words from the beginning to "residence".'.

No. 61, in page 91, line 21, column 3, leave out 'Section 48(2).' and insert
'In section 48, subsections (1)(c) and (2).'.

No. 62, in page 91, line 27, column 3, after '23(a)', insert '25'.

No. 63, in page 91, line 35, column 3, at end insert—



'In Schedule 10, in Part II, the words "section 15(1)", "section 15(1) and (5) and" and "section 15(1)(a) and", and Part III.'.

No. 64, in page 91, line 47, at end insert—


'1989 c. 41.
The Children Act 1989.
In Schedule 12, paragraphs 21 and 24.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 102, in line 6, after 'financial,', insert 'and other'.—[ Mr. John Patten.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Criminal Justice Bill has been improved in an excellent Committee stage to which hon. Members on both sides have contributed-I refer in particular to the official Opposition and the absent hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) on behalf of the third parties. My right hon.


Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and I are very grateful to those who served on the Committee for the way in which they improved the Bill.
I have only four points to make. First, the Bill has brought about a number of widely welcomed fundamental changes that have appealed to both sides of the House. For example, some radical and long overdue reforms to the parole system have been received with universal plaudits.
Secondly, the Bill has also seen the breaking in to the world of penal affairs and the criminal justice system a greater measure of involvement by the private sector than this country has ever seen before. The measure of the help that the private sector can bring, alongside the voluntary sector to court security duties and in the running of private remand centres, will help this country and its penal system.
Thirdly, the Bill marks a signal attempt on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the fight against crime, on this occasion looking not at trying to bolt the door after the penal or criminal horse has escaped but at trying to deal with issues at the root. That is why we have placed so much attention in the Bill on parental responsibility and on trying to improve parental responsibility to stop young people growing crooked and contributing to crime when they are older.
At the same time, we have also wanted, through adopting the radical proposals of the Pigot committee in respect of child witnesses, to make quite sure that more guilty child abusers are brought to book and put in prison. Our changes in the parole system will mean that they will stay in prison for a considerably longer period than they have hitherto.
Fourthly, the Bill has made the most radical changes to the sentencing framework of the criminal justice system that this century has seen. The ability that the Bill confers on sentencers to ensure that those who commit serious, violent and sexual crimes receive punishment commensurate with those crimes—normally meaning that they will be sentenced to considerably longer periods than they get now and that they will stay in gaol for considerably longer periods—is balanced by a similar series of provisions that enable much greater punishment in the community to occur so that minor, less serious and non-violent criminals are punished outside our prisons.
It is peculiarly apposite that we are making these changes on the day on which Lord Justice Woolf's excellent report was published. That fundamental change to the sentencing structure will underlie developments in the criminal justice system, not just in this decade or in the first decade of the next century. It will be the fundamental underpinning of the criminal justice system well into the next century. No Bill is immortal, but this Bill will make a fundamental change to the way in which we do things. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Sheerman: It has been a long process. This Bill was the major Bill in the Gracious Speech, and we spent many hours debating it in Committee. As the Minister said, this is an important day. The day on which Third Reading took place will be looked back on as a historic day for the criminal justice system.
We discussed the hallmark of this Bill in Committee. When the Government went along with the independent

authorities that had been asked to consider particular problems—I refer to the Prior report and to the Carlisle report—and when they introduced into the Bill the distillation of such wisdom, they produced important and encouraging provisions.
Thanks to a little help from the Opposition in tidying up bits and pieces here and there and in nudging the Government here and there, the Bill is not too bad in parts. However, other parts of the Bill are not based on such a sound pragmatic framework but are more concerned with the ideological claptrap of a Thatcherite society. Nowadays, even that term is out of date. We look with dismay at the provisions dealing with parental responsibility and privatisation.
The Woolf report, which we discussed this afternoon, is uppermost in our minds. There is an inevitable contradiction between those provisions and what the Woolf report said, which we believe is the basis for a bright future for the criminal justice system—certainly the penal side of the system. Historians will look back on this day as the day on which there was a possibility of change in our penal system. Unfortunately, that change will not occur because of the Third Reading of this Bill. People will remember this as the day of the Woolf report and not the day of Third Reading.
For those of us who wanted a more thorough reform of our penal system, it has been a sad day. The Government have prevented us at every twist and turn from debating and amending the Bill. First, they deliberately constrained the debate by giving the Bill its long title, because they knew that the Woolf report was on its way. To some extent, we believe that the Government have delayed the Woolf report coming to the House because they did not want the embarrassment of it arriving in time to allow a real opportunity to amend the Bill here.
What is wrong with the Bill is that it missed that opportunity. There was even pettiness last Wednesday on the first day of Report, when we were arguing for simple measures to get people out of prison, which is what we thought the Bill was about—and those measures are in Woolf. We must get out of prison those people who should not and need not be there, such as the mentally ill. We tabled an amendment in Committee and last Wednesday on Report to try to get out of the penal system the 20 per cent. of mentally ill people who should never have been placed in it. We tabled a simple amendment to ensure that a pyschiatric report would be available to a court when it was thought necessary.
Another issue on which we feel bitter is the imprisonment of fine defaulters. Opposition Members want to get away from the Dickensian world in which debtors are sent to prison—17,000 fine defaulters are sent to prison each year. They should not be clogging the system. That is against any supportable system of justice.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Opposition have attempted to criticise constructively those parts of the Bill that we support, while making quite clear our principled objections to the Bill's objectionable and doctrinaire proposals. We have attempted to improve the Bill with a range of new suggestions that would be of great benefit to the criminal justice system. We have succeeded in making the Government think again on several proposals.
I do not want to crow, but I shall list one or two. The definition of "serious harm" in clauses 1 and 2 has been greatly improved. The Government have at least started to


see the importance of statutory obligations to tackle racism. They have improved on their initial blunder with regard to clause 25 and homosexual offences. But the Government have still not got those issues right, and we hope that there is still time to move. We shall be pressing for further changes in the other place.
We have succeeded also in persuading the Government to get rid of the five-day rule. There have been constructive changes to the section of the Pigot proposals to include, for example, child witnesses within the Bill's protections. The Government have got rid of the daft proposal to allow parents of 16-year-olds living at home and attending full-time education to be bound over. We can claim that all those are some minor successes that have been achieved not only by opposition, but by the fact that we have taken the Bill seriously and tried constructively to aid the Government when appropriate.
We shall continue to push these and many other issues in another place. In addition to the issues that I have already raised, we shall press the Government to accept our new clause to divert the mentally ill from prison. The treatment of the mentally ill is a blot on our present system. I hope that, in the light of the Woolf inquiry, the Government will come to see the wisdom of our proposals. We hope, too, that the Government, in the light of Woolf, will warm to our proposals to limit the number of fine defaulters who are committed to prison. We anticipate that, in another place, our new clauses to ensure that this country complies with the European Court of Human Rights' ruling on life-sentence prisoners and on the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder will meet with more favour. We shall continue to argue our case for a sentencing council, which we believe is at the heart of where the Government have got the Bill wrong.
We have objected to many of the proposals in the Bill from the outset. We regard curfews and electronic monitoring as dangerous gimmicks, which research has shown to be a farce. Then there are the proposals on fining and binding over parents. Glibly described as attempts to shore up parental responsibility, they do nothing of the sort. Populist and simplistic, they seem designed to tip the more vulnerable families in our community into breakdown.
Finally, there are the privatisation proposals. No Bill is complete without some reference to this dogmatic obsession. The Government are determined to plough on and, indeed extend this idea, despite the appalling record of the private security industry, and despite all the damage that it is doing to relationships with key personnel in the prison system. Privatisation is poisoning the atmosphere in the prison service, at a time when a responsible Government would ensure that they were pulling everyone behind them as they moved to the implementation of Woolf. Relationships with prison governors are at an all-time low, and relationships with prison officers are not good.
I hope that the Government will think again and allow some of the key proposals of the Woolf report to be incorporated in the Bill. When the Home Secretary introduced the Woolf report—all 800 pages of it, which we had had about an hour and a half to absorb—we pleaded with the Government, even at this late stage, to think again, with a view to incorporating some of that radically new philosophy into the Bill during its passage through another place.
Again I ask the Home Secretary, who is now on the Front Bench, and his team really to think through the issue. As we said earlier today, we see Woolf as a change of philosophy. If the Government accept it, they have markedly changed their stance. Let me refer to a point about which I pressed the Home Secretary. If the Government really accept Woolf, the simplistic approaches—building more prisons, and privatising a sector of the service—have been recognised for what they are. These were always false paths.
This Bill is good in parts, and it has been improved in parts. However, two important parts of it will do major damage to the criminal justice system and will be resented by magistrates and by those who work in the prison service. What we need is an all-party, more moderate approach. We hear that, these days, it is fashionable in Government circles to talk about a centrist role in policy terms.
At this late stage I ask the Home Secretary to come back to the centre of the political spectrum in terms of prison reform. If he draws back from the ideological realms of privatisation, the Opposition will extend the hand of co-operation. Let us together look at Woolf and decide not to take an ideological attitude to criminal justice and penal reform, but to adopt a pragmatic approach based on the facts. If the Government do that, the prospects for criminal justice in this country will be much brighter.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Unlike the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I welcome this Bill in all its parts. It is a moderate but very dramatic and positive step forward, and I endorse what the Minister said in his moving Third Reading.
For the first time, provision is being made for a community sentence specifically capable of being used to reduce the use of imprisonment as a punishment for those who have alcohol or drug problems. Of all sentences of imprisonment for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 52 per cent. are for periods of less than 12 months, and 36 per cent. are for periods of less than six months. It is likely that the majority of people serving these short sentences are themselves drug users.
Within prison, although there have been efforts to provide a care system involving the prison medical service and the probation service, prisoners serving very short terms are rarely seen by either service. For the population of drug users, imprisonment is a temporary disruption of their drug use. They are ideal candidates for non-custodial sentences. So are those drug users convicted of non-drug offences, whose offending is linked to their drug use.
I hope that, even at this late stage, my right hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Home Secretary will think again about the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) and myself, and will consider whether those minor changes could be incorporated in the final version of the Bill, so that it might do a 100 per cent. job, as opposed to a 99·9 per cent. job, of improving the system in the way in which the Home Secretary and this House want to see it improved.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) will forgive me if I do not follow his points, although, like the Minister, I recognise the hon. Gentleman's long interest in this matter.
I am extremely sorry that I was in a meeting preparing for a Standing Committee tomorrow morning and thus unable to be in the Chamber when the House considered the provision allowing children to give evidence on video. As the Minister knows, like the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), I have been interested in this matter for some time, and I am pleased that the Government have taken the view that they have, because a need clearly existed. However, it would be inappropriate for me merely to compliment the Government on one aspect of the Bill when other parts of it do not meet with my approval.
Before I entered the House in 1970, I was a school-master—probably an old-fashioned one, because I took the view that young people should behave themselves. I would not dissent if the Government took a similar view. However, if the Minister wants to reduce the level of crime, irresponsibility and disorder among young people, the Bill will not serve that purpose. They should ensure greater hope and more opportunities for young people.
I am delighted by the success of the South Yorkshire police, although I find it preposterous that the Home Office should tell us to employ 18 more police officers next year when the Department of the Environment then pursues policies which will cause us to lose 200. We have managed to secure a high level of detection, despite the fact that the vast majority of young people leaving school in my constituency see no economic opportunity of any real worth. I am amazed that the crime rate is not higher, in my area and in the country as a whole. The position will not improve until the Government pursue other policies, as well as those on criminal justice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) urged the Government to adopt a more pragmatic position and to reject the dogma of privatisation in the penal system. Like my hon. Friend, I am a practising politician, so I should like the Government to continue on this course because the vast majority of people will regard privatisation of our prison service as preposterous. I wonder how many of them will be talking about a convicts' co-operative. I wonder how many people, next time one of the millionaire fiddlers in the City of London is sent down for fraud, will ask whether he has gone into a private, five-star institution, perhaps financed by the Government under the business expansion scheme and thus offered at a 40 per cent. discount. [ Laughter.]
Conservative Members may laugh, but I remember taking part in the first debate on one of the early privatisations—that of Amersham International. Conservative Members said that the assets of the company were in the hands of the people who worked in the company. When I suggested that, if that was so, they

should establish a co-operative, they mocked the suggestion—largely because they knew that they would make an enormous profit within 24 hours of the company being privatised. I wonder how many will laugh when they realise that the people now recognise that privatisation has become preposterous. Privatising prisons is a move that the vast majority of people, who retain a grasp of common sense, will regard as ridiculous.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I am certain that the Minister did not expect me to let this Third Reading opportunity go by without mentioning the evidence of children and the Pigot report.
I am pleased with the progress that we have made on children giving evidence, but we have not yet got it right. I should like to put down a few markers. I cannot understand why, if a written transcript of a sick child's statement made before a magistrate is admissible in evidence under sections 42 and 43 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the Minister could not agree to add the words "and a video tape", especially as he considers that the provision already exists in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I shall keep asking him that question until I am satisfied with his answer, which is far from the case now.
Children should have a right to a say on the use of screens and video links in our courts. I am not convinced that they will have that protection unless the right is written into the Bill. Our courts do not yet have sufficient understanding of the needs of young children to allow them to have such protection. Cases involving this are frequently brought to me, and I shall describe just one.
Some months ago, a lady telephoned me about her young daughter aged eight, who was giving evidence in Inverness high court. Scotland is supposed to be progressive about the needs of children. She said that, in court, the lawyers and the judge sat in their wigs and gowns and that her child spoke quietly about the disgusting things that the accused man did to her. She was expected to give all the details. There was no microphone. The lawyers shouted at her and the judge told her to speak up. The more they shouted at her, the quieter she spoke. In the end, the case was thrown out because the judge said that, as the court could not hear the evidence, it could not try the case. That is not justice for children. The courts have still to understand that young children must have special consideration because of the strain they are under.
I shall return, as will many of my hon. Friends here and in another place, to the case for a pre-trial hearing. I believe strongly that our court rooms are no places for small children. Until we remove their ordeal of having to appear in court, we will not have the law right. We have some way to go before the Government accept the full impact of the Pigot report. Many of my hon. Friends and I will continue to press for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Construction Industry Training Board

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
The proposals before the House seek authority for the construction industry training board to raise a levy on the employers in the building and civil engineering industries, to finance the running costs of the board and to run a grants scheme. The proposals are the first to be submitted by the board since it was reconstituted last year. They are different from those submitted in previous years in that the levy is now based solely on a payroll basis.
The basis of the proposals is a levy of 0·25 per cent. on the payroll of employers in the industry, and a levy of 2 per cent. on all payments made by employers for sub-contract labour. Employers with a payroll of £45,000 or less will be exempt from the levy. The proposals have the support of the employers, as required by the Industrial Training Act 1982, and the full support of the board.
The House will know that the Government thought long and hard about their decision to retain this statutory training board. In principle, we believe that independent employer-led arrangements which have the full support of employers offer the best way forward for industrial training. In general, the track record of compulsion through statutory levies in raising the quality and quantity of training is not a good one.
We have, however, retained the statutory principle in the case of this industry because of strong support from employers. The construction industry has particular characteristics which create peculiar problems for training. The mobile nature of the work of the industry, the mobile nature of its work force, both geographically and between employers, together with the large-scale use of subcontract and self-employed labour produce a unique set of circumstances in those sectors of the construction industry.
Let me emphasise that we consulted widely with the industry about the CITB. There was a widespread and strongly held view that the CITB should be retained but that its management should be streamlined and reformed. In addition, the employers in the industry argued strongly for the retention of a statutory levy because of the largely self-employed nature of the labour force.
We were therefore persuaded to give the industry a chance to reform its training board, to remodel it as an employer-led body, and to alter the basis of levy collection. The revised basis of the levy proposals before the House today is one indication that reform is happening. I am happy to say that other reforms, such as the internal restructuring of the board's management and improvement in financial control, are also taking place. I expect shortly to see the Board's revised proposals for its grants scheme, and later in the year its strategic plan. All this is an indication that the CITB is proceeding in the right direction.
We intend to keep a close watching brief on the Board. Its powers to raise a levy are exceptional and the Government, like the House, must be convinced that they are absolutely necessary to preserve the basis of training in the contruction industry. Because of the peculiar nature of

the industry, the Government have decided to continue with a statutory board for the time being. As we said in the 1989 White Paper, however, we continue to believe that the most effective incentive for companies to train is a knowledge and understanding of the skill needs and not centralised regulation based on statutory powers.
I believe it is right for 1991 that the House should approve the proposals before it. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I praise the work of the CITB, because the construction industry employs nearly 1·8 million people and makes a valuable contribution to the quality of life and a significant contribution to the economy. We do not intend to divide the House on the order, but we have serious misgivings about the nature of some of the proposals included in it.
The order should be seen against the background of a construction industry in crisis. The order may be supported by the House, but it was not overwhelmingly supported by the CITB. The order also continues the systematic dismantling of the two remaining training boards, which are the continuing victims of the purge that was visited upon the training infrastructure in the 1980s.
The order underlines the Government's failure to address the serious issues of sector provision and the need to develop strong, responsible and adequately funded initiatives to tackle some of the economic problems that we shall face in the years up to 2,000.
We are most concerned about how out of step the Government are with what is happening in Europe; how out of line they are with best British practice in training provision, and how out of touch they are with the key contribution that a supply side skills initiative could make to economic well-being and the quality of life of young people and adults in the labour market.
There are a number of charges that we must direct at the Government. Despite the Minister's fine words, the order has not enlisted the full support of the CITB. We have grave reservations about the details in the order, some of which I shall outline later.
Our second charge is that the Government have abandoned any serious commitment to sector-led iniatives. The record of the past decade is ridiculous: of 23 training boards, 16 were removed, followed by another five, and two were grudgingly accepted as part of the statutory framework. I fear that even they will not last much longer, because the Government are keen on the voluntary sector, and that means that nothing practical will be allowed to get in their way.
The third charge relates precisely to the attachment to voluntarism. Ministers say that they do not want bureacuracy or the imposition on employers of a statutory framework. Why then do successful countries have such statutory frameworks, under which their contribution of supply side skills initiatives make a great impact on the economic well-being and industrial performance—and on a key area in which Britain remains weak: output per person employed?
Fourthly, the Government have invested in training and enterprise councils, which we support. But TECs can co-exist in an industrial and training strategy only alongside a strong sector base. Anyone who knows anything about training knows that we must deal with


companies' specific difficulties. TECs have a role to play in helping with difficulties in local labour markets, for instance. We must also attack inter-company difficulties through sector-based initiatives.
It is sad that, after 12 years, the Government seem to be moving away from the type of policies that apply in Europe and from the growing consensus surrounding the need for strong sectors.
My fifth charge is that the Government often lecture us to the effect that industry knows best. The CITB has told the Government that it knows best, but in a spectacular example of hypocrisy, the Government have been unwilling to accept the wisdom of the very people whom they have entrusted with the future of training in construction. Our evidence shows that to be true.
The changes in the levy are important. First, the form of calculation is to be changed; and, secondly, the level of exclusion will be altered. The previous levy on employers was levied per capita and different annual rates were set for different trades. That system will be replaced this year by a payroll levy, as the Minister told us. It is true that the move to a payroll levy has won general approval, but many people think that the level at which it has been set is far too low. The Government have forced the CITB to set the levy at the low rate of 0·25 per cent.
The Building Employers Confederation, for instance, which represents the largest group of employers, argues that that percentage is far too low. The BEC wrote to the CITB on 4 September 1990 as follows:
With regard to the level of 0·25 per cent.… the Confederation considers that it may be unwise to set such a low level at this point in time. Furthermore, during the present period of uncertainty with regard to the future funding of training, especially in respect of Training and Enterprise Councils, and Government cutbacks in YT funding, the Board should not allow the industry's long term training to be jeopardised through lack of sufficient financial support raised through levy.
So that section of the industry is not happy with the 0·25 per cent.; the needs of the industry demand a higher levy.
When reconstituting the CITB, the Government made it clear that they wanted to increase the financial exclusion level. That has always been opposed by the CITB and most of the industry. The Minister has insisted, against the board's advice, that the small firms exclusion level should be increased from £15,000 to £45,000. That, of course, will affect both the 2 per cent. on labour-only payments and the 0·25 per cent. payroll levy. Even after the CITB was forced to back down over the exclusion thresholds, several employers' organisations wrote to the CITB in September last year complaining about the decision. They included the Building Employers Confederation and the Electrical Contractors Association.
In its 90th edition, in October 1990, under the headline
Warning that training will be hit: Levy 'Escape' Limit Goes Up to £45,000",
Construction Board News reported:
Despite industry's stated view that all firms should contribute to the cost of training, the CITB has had to agree to a government instruction to exclude many more smaller firms from paying the statutory levy.
This, says the CITB, will cut the amount of levy income and reduce its ability to carry out training.
The industry has clearly spoken, through its newspaper. The proposal was supported by neither the industry nor the board; it was imposed over their heads by a

Government who were wedded to the notion of voluntarism, rejecting the practical, common-sense views of board members.
The Construction Board News editorial also said:
In acceptance of another condition imposed by the Government, the CITB has also agreed to switch its levy charging system to one of a percentage of each company's payroll.
The initial imposition of conditions does not suggest any degree of voluntarism between Government and the CITB. It clearly shows that the Government have made up their mind that this is the direction that the board will follow. It is not a case of industry knowing best, but one of Government knowing best and handing out their own perverted ideology by diktat.
When the board was reconstituted, it did not approve of a levy system that was not tied to exemption. Again, the Government had stated the conditions under which the board was to operate. They forced the board to undertake a review of the issue of exemptions, and even laid down criteria for how it was to evaluate the views that it received from employers. The review revealed—interestingly—that 10 of the 11 main employers' organisations supported the retention of statutory levy not tied to exemption. The only employers' organisation that wanted to introduce the exemption system was the Scottish Plant Owners Association: as a Scot, I say that with some regret.
The result of the review was a severe rebuff for the Government's policy of leaving training to the market. On every occasion, the board made its views clear; but it had no chance of changing the Government's mind. It must be remembered that these were handpicked industrialists. There were only two trade union representatives on the board, which was not packed with people who would instinctively oppose the Government's aims. Nevertheless, it felt obliged, through the press and in other ways, to voice its concern about a Government who it felt were working against its interests.
The changes proposed in the order are all linked to the future of the CITB. When it was reconstructed in 1989, the Government made it clear that they were reluctantly giving in to employer pressure: they cannot deny that. What is more, the CITB was given not so much a clean bill of health as a conditional reprieve. It was reconstituted for three years; at the end of that period, its future would be reassessed. Many employers' organisations fear that the Government's real intention is still to get rid of the board.
Let me remind the House of the conditions under which the two remaining statutory boards had to operate. Clearly the Government had been moved by pressure to retain them, but had not been moved by force of argument to accept the wisdom of such a move. A press release issued by the Department of Employment on 4 April 1990 included a reference to a letter in which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State had set out the priorities to the new board. The first was to
continue to develop and promote as a matter of priority modular based nationally recognised vocational qualifications for all occupations within the industry.
No one could disagree with that objective.
The second was to
operate in a way that ensures its strategies programmes and activities are fully compatible with the development of Training and Enterprise Councils.
Some have argued that it should be the other way round, because in many competitor countries strong sector initiatives are complemented by local delivery, by local


market intelligence and by bringing employers together to tackle skills training. The Government want sectors o fall into line with TECs, which were barely developed at that time.
The third condition is important:
The use of levy funds directly to subsidise training provision and the industry's YTS schemes should be rapidly phased out.
Finally:
More small firms should be given protection from the burden of levy.
Political ideology permeates Government thought on the future of sector initiatives. Voluntarism or the market model are all-important, and any other consideration, especially a practical one, must play a secondary role.
In a Department of Employment press notice on 9 November, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) outlined his views of the future of the CITB and its construction section. He said:
In two sectors I have accepted the strong arguments of employers that statutory arrangements should continue for the time being. But this does not shake our belief'—
not practical training considerations, but "our belief"—
that a voluntary approach offers a better, long term solution to meeting industry's own training needs.
There is not an iota of practical evidence to back the right hon. Gentleman's "belief'. Will the Minister say what evidence the Government have to sustain that view?
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield continued:
I have told the two ITBs concerned that we shall be carrying out a searching review in about three years time to see if statutory arrangements are still necessary.
The sting in the tail followed:
At present I am minded to think that they too should move to an entirely voluntary basis.
The simple logic is breathtaking—a belief with no evidence to back it. In effect, the right hon. Gentleman was saying, "We shall have a searching review, but we have made up our mind, so for three years do what you wish under the conditions we impose but after 1993 your time will be up."
There is more practical and compelling evidence of the Government's intention to wind up the CITB. They have encouraged sectors such as heating and ventilation, plumbing and electrical contracting to remove themselves from the scope of the CITB. Under the order, they have increased the exclusion threshold from £10,000 to £45,000 and have refused to allow the payroll levy to be set higher than 0–25 per cent. A Labour Government will undertake not a political but a positive review of sector initiatives and of the non-statutory training organisations.
Those changes have dramatically reduced the CITB's income, in addition to the more general cuts in funding of youth training and employment training. The CITB is being forced to spend more than it receives each year, and its reserves are being eaten away. For the year ending 31 March 1990, its income was £167·6 million, but for 31 March 1991, its expected income has been cut to £125·2 million, with levy income cut from £74·4 million to £59·6 million and income from YT cut from £83·9 million to £52·39 million.
For the year 1989–90, the CITB had a current account deficit of £1·46 million, but for the year ending 31 March 1991, the estimated deficit is. £14·465 million. Over the next two years, it expects to receive even less income in levy and Government funding for YT. The CITB has to assume a budget deficit of more than £10 million for each of those years. That amounts to a budget deficit of more than £35

million in just three years. The CITB's total reserves were £74·5 million as at 31 March 1990. It is clear that the Government are forcing the CITB to spend all its reserves as a way of helping the wind-down of that organisation.
On 13 February, in the CITB's news release, the director of training, Douglas Shaw, was reported as saying:
Forecasts of an annual deficit of between £10 million and £11 million in each of the next three years and a consequent fall in the Board's reserves make it necessary to look closely at both the nature of training and the level of support for each category.
There is a clear implication that income is falling because of levy changes and massive cuts in YT and ET funding. The net consequence is that the board uses its reserves, which will last for a finite time, or it cuts the volume or the quality of training or it cuts both.
Obviously, the Government are putting the CITB in the worst of all worlds—it will not be able to satisfy construction employers, because expenditure is declining, and it is risking its reserves simply to maintain current expenditure levels. I hope that the Minister will comment on the financial difficulties facing the board as the Government's policy unfolds over the next two to three years.
It is crucial that we consider all those aspects against the background of the crisis facing construction training programmes. Before the recession, the biggest problem facing construction was skills shortage. The Reading university centre for strategic studies in construction, in a report called "Building—2001", estimated that the annual skills shortfall in construction could be as high as 50,000. The CITB annual report for 1989–90 shows that the shortage of school leavers was undermining training even further. Numbers on the CITB's two flagship training schemes, the YTS and the electrical contracting industry scheme, were down by more than 2,000 on the previous year. A total of 22,453 people started on those schemes in 1989–90 whereas a year earlier the figure was 24,621.
News comment last year also painted a bleak picture of what was in store for new entrants to the construction industry and YTS. An article in The Independent of 8 June 1990 stated:
The biggest youth training scheme in the country, involving 37,000 construction trainees, is under 'fundamental review', which could lead to severe cuts or even closure.
That was dramatic news at that time, but it is now clear that the number of apprenticeships has slumped. The number of new entrants next year will drop by about 7,000 compared with the number this year. Obviously, all these financial and political pressures are having a direct result on the volume and quality of training.
If this is the skills revolution about which the Government constantly talk, we should like to know how the Government can spend less, force the boards to spend less and affect quality and volume. The CITB is forced to work on the assumption that it will train even fewer entrants in the next two years. In 1991–92, the CITB is estimated to be training only 17,000 new entrants. Further evidence of training cuts comes from figures published by the National Joint Council for the Building Industries, which oversees the building industry's 8,400-strong apprenticeship scheme. That organisation says that the number of apprentice registrations is dropping drastically compared with previous years.
It would be bad enough if the industry was facing only a skills crisis. The Building Employers Confederation's


most recent quarterly state of the trade survey, published in February 1991, shows that training is likely to suffer badly in coming months, but it also shows that 53 per cent. of building firms experienced a cut in output, in the last quarter of 1990. Sixty-seven per cent. of the top 20 national contractors reported a cut in output, and 50 per cent. of firms reported a cut in inquiries for new work. The BEC has also estimated that 100,000 jobs in the building industry could be lost by the end of this year.
When the Minister opened this debate, he did not refer to the crisis facing the industry or to the fact that quality and volume training were being cut. Skills shortages stand at 50,000 a year, and the industry also faces the massive impact of the recession. Obviously we are far from having a world-class work force in the construction industry, but the industry has a great desire to work towards that objective.
This shabby tale of the Government's commitment to training in the 1990s raises several issues. The first relates to small employers. The Government are obsessed with the idea that small employers should be cut off from the reality of industrial life and from a fair contribution to training. Figures from the 1988 labour force survey and unpublished data from the Department of Employment computer show the problems facing small employers. Expenditure on training per employee in a company comprising 10 to 49 employees was 98p per hour. For a company employing between 500 to 999, the figure was £3·07. Expenditure per employee as annual costs for training for the firm employing between 10 and 49 employees was £19. However, for the firm with between 500 and 999 employees, the cost was £61.
Small employers need assistance, but the Government's logic is to exclude them. However, that places stresses and strains on the funding for the board's activities in training in general. The Government also do nothing practical to allow small employers to participate effectively in the skills training that a small company needs as much as a large company.
The Government's figures suggest that, instead of pursuing the political holy grail of voluntarism and exclusion, they should be taking a more positive look at the problems facing small employers in construction and elsewhere and then providing some practical solutions. It is evident that small employers face difficulties, but the Government, for political reasons, turn a blind eye to them.
This shabby tale also raises questions about training and enterprise councils in relation to sectors. The engineering industry training board which claims a lead in the industry, was very critical of TECs in an article in the Financial Times on 24 January. It was critical because it thought that the TECs were in danger of creating alternative and inconsistent standards in relation to national vocational qualifications.
However, a much more telling criticism of the Government's approach to sectors vis-a-vis TECs appeared in the March 1989 quarterly published by Incomes Data Services Ltd., which read:
This is the argument coming strongly from several industries at the moment, notably the Chemical Industry Association which established one of the more successful non-statutory training organisations in the aftermath of the abolition of most of the Industry Training Boards in 1982.

Local emphasis, the CIA told a recent CBI conference on training, 'must not be allowed to override, dilute or prevent sectoral and national standards, must not step outside agreed sectoral and national policies and must not allow the loudest voice to fill the biggest local fist with most of the new local resources … TECs will only meet their local needs inside a coherent national framework … We see each TEC acting as an additional resource, as additional pressure point upon training and educational priorities, but not as a replacement for a sector's own local network'.
That is industry telling the Government that their skewed priorities, which mean investment in TECs to the exclusion of sectors, are not something that British industry can support.
The Government must acknowledge that the Chemical Industries Association is responsible, powerful, efficient and forward-looking in dealing with the needs of its industry and, in particular, skills. If that is so, and we should let industry, which knows best, carry out that role, why do the Government never listen to industry? The answer is that they have closed minds and political prejudices. Time is running out for the Government to tackle the skills crisis before a Labour Government return to do so more seriously—[Laughter]
The third issue that I wish to raise amid the laughter and merriment from the sleepy Ministers is that of the non-statutory training organisations. When the Government were dismantling the statutory training boards in the 1980s, they also set up industry training organisations—the voluntarist arm of the sectoral skills initiative. But interestingly, on 26 February 1988, a study was undertaken, and a press notice issued by the Department stated:
The research paper is the result of the first comprehensive review of the country's 102 Non-Statutory Training Organisations, which represent firms employing about five million people.
It said that more than half—56—could be described as effective. It does not need a brilliant mathematician to work out that that must mean that nearly half were, by definition, ineffective. The caveat was thrown in that some organisations were being reorganised and so could not contribute to the survey.
If that is successful voluntarism, will the Minister say why the new experiment has, in many cases, been such a magnificent failure—so much so that, on 24 January 1991, a mere three years later, a major research project to examine the effectiveness of the national network of sector-based industry training organisations was announced by the then employment Minister?
The Government stumbled into one change which, for political reasons, could never work. Therefore, three years later, after a report had told them that half the organisations were ineffective, a major review is undertaken. I hope that the Minister will consider the need not only to review the NSTOs, but to review positively the work of the construction industry training board so that it can be assured of a future beyond 1993. The lack of certainty in its work is causing immense problems.
The fourth and most important issue that the Government have failed to address is that of economic performance and productivity. Every study that compares Britain with Europe comes up with two broad conclusions. First, our European competitors have sector initiatives that are strong and employer-led, but that also have Government support. There is a relationship between all the partners, including the trade unions and the providers.
Secondly, it is clear that every other country in Europe has a better and more consistent record of improved productivity than we do. The Government may respond and say that, in the early 1980s there was a massive shake-out of labour, restrictive practices were removed and there was an increase in productivity. But where is that productivity miracle now? It cannot be delivered through training and enterprise councils or through a company's specific training. Until we establish a better base for foundation skills for 16 to 19-year-olds, it cannot be achieved through that mechanism. It can be done through supply side initiatives in sectors. Whether in engineering or construction, it is clear that productivity is linked to supply side initiatives.
The Government are throwing away an excellent opportunity to tackle the long-term productivity problems, increase output per person and reduce unit costs. That is the key to this country's success in the 1990s. Through sectors, skills and leadership, we have the opportunity to make better productivity improvements than we have at present. On small employers, TECs, NSTOs and economic performance the Government are guilty of ignoring reality, best practice in Europe, and the growing consensus in British industry about the way forward.
I urge the Minister to extend the remit of NSTOs and to consider a secure future for the Construction Industry Training Board and the construction section of the engineering iindustry training board. The Government should take on board the idea that sectors should have a status similar to that of TECs. Both are urgently needed and both are part of our industrial and training strategy for the 1990s, but they are complementary. One cannot survive without the other. Obviously, the enhanced status for sectors will mean that they will become an important part of the debate rather than, as at present, being regarded by the Government as a Cinderella.
Thirdly, in public policy terms, we must get away from the simplistic "politics first, voluntarism" first attitude to statutory provision. If industry says that we need change, will the Government listen? If there is a consensus on a way forward, will the Government listen? Surely we do not need an over-prescriptive Government allowing a statutory board to continue and then setting limits and parameters within which it can operate. Is there not a balance or flexibility so that we can allow industry to work with Government to achieve the best for its sector, in the interests of its sector, and not be tied by the over-prescription that we constantly see?
Fourthly, will the Government reconsider the fact that they have marginalised the employee part of the partnership? Where in this country can we find the ideal that other European countries have? We do not have it. Obviously, unless we can bring in employee representatives in a more positive way, we shall make little progress.
I do not expect for a minute that the Government will take on board any suggestions that we make, but it is clear that, if the Government will not attend to the skill needs of the nation, we certainly shall. In the remaining few months until there is a Labour Government, it is incumbent on the Minister to take seriously the issues that the Opposition raise.

Mr. Michael Latham: I shall speak for only a couple of minutes, and I shall do so on the basis of having worked directly in the construction industry since 1967 and having been a director of a member firm of the Building Employers Confederation, for which I also worked directly for six years. Therefore, I declare an interest as a director of a large construction company which pays levy and receives grant as a result of training.
The strictures of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) were grossly exaggerated. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Government were not listening. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that the Government were minded to abolish the construction industry training board a couple of years ago and that they listened not only to the industry but to a considerable number of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends. In particular, they listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). The training headquarters of the construction industry training board is based in Bircham Newton, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West has done an outstanding job in defending the interests of his constituents and raising these matters with Ministers. I pay tribute to him.
Having worked in the industry for many years, and still working in it, I know that the board is absolutely essential to the industry. Despite the continual use of the expression "the construction industry" by the hon. Gentleman and many other people, there is no such thing as the construction industry, except as an overall expression. There are a large number of different industries and different trades within it. Some of them do absolutely no training. The private house building sector, for example, has hardly any apprentices. The vast majority of the work that takes place on house building sites is sub-contracted to labour-only gangs and self-employed men. It is an extremely efficient system but not one which produces many apprentices. That is well known. The hon. Gentleman gave figures showing the declining number of apprentices. I remember giving exactly the same figures 20 years ago in discussions with Ministers at the time. The number of apprentices rises and falls according to the state of the industry; at present, the industry is in recession and is therefore taking on fewer apprentices. That is extremely regrettable.
However, in practice, if there were no construction industry training board and if there were no statutory levy—in particular, if there were no levy for labour-only sub-contractors, which is rightly set at the higher figure of 2 per cent. in the order—there would be virtually no training in the industry. People would continually he poaching each other's men; men would simply move from one site to another hunting the higher bonuses that are on offer, particularly when the industry is in good shape, which at present it is not. It is essential, therefore, to maintain the levy.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the exclusion of the smallest firms. I agree with the Government that it is right, although I know that that view is not popular with many of the trade associations. As I said, I worked for one for six years. Quite apart from the administrative nightmare of trying to collect any levy from


firms that employ one or two men—or possibly no one at all—such a system would take us back to exactly the problems that we faced in 1969.
I do not know whether the institutional memory of the hon. Member for Fife, Central goes back as far as that, but mine does. I worked in the industry then—directly, at the Building Employers Confederation—and I was concerned with those problems. The board nearly collapsed then. It was Robert Carr and the incoming Conservative Government who saved the board and put it on a firm basis, just as the present Government and the present Minister decided to continue with it.
The basis for the salvation of the board by Robert Carr, then Secretary of State in 1970–71 was that it was agreed that it was ridiculous to continue to allow the very large companies—I am a director of one—to make a profit out of the board and the levy because they were training so many people in management and getting all the levy back and more, while small companies employing two or three people could send to be trained once a man whom they could ill spare off site and would then have to go on paying the levy indefinitely, year after year. My hon. Friend the Minister is quite right to exclude such firms from the levy, and I support him in that regard.
Let me stress to my hon. Friend, however, that construction is not like other industries. It has a mobile work force. It does not have fixed places of employment. Men move from site to site, and sites close, often after quite a short period. If we are to retain any training in the industry at all, we must have a board and we must have a levy. We now have an excellent board with a fine chairman in Cliff Chetwood and a new chief executive in General Wilmott. I wish it every success and I look to my hon. Friend to ensure that it has a good solid future.

Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for recognising that the Government have been flexible and have listened to the industry's arguments and taken into account the special circumstances pertaining in different sectors of the industry—hence the proposals that we are debating today. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is ironic that the Opposition should have chosen this of all occasions to denounce the Government for having ideological hang-ups about voluntarism. Perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did not think deeply enough about the circumstances when he chose this occasion to launch his attack.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the CITB and for its work. I agree with him about it. I also welcome his endorsement of the new training and enterprise councils, although I rather regret the hon. Gentleman's tendency to attempt to set up an opposition between a TEC approach and a sectoral approach. As he said at one point in his speech, they have to be complementary. Arguments based on the premise that they are somehow rival approaches, which formed an element of the hon. Gentleman's speech, are ill founded. The TECs and the industrial training boards—the sectoral bodies—have complementary roles, and we must recognise that.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central rather ironically chose to make a strong pitch in favour of a compulsory

levy approach to training. This is not the occasion on which to debate the Labour party's evolving policy on training, although I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take his ideas seriously. We had an opportunity for an extensive debate about these matters only a few weeks ago. The Opposition signally failed to give the House the chance to consider their latest thinking. Opposition Members said nothing about their ideas about compulsory levies—it was Conservative Members who took those matters up.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Government's "perverted ideology" in favour of voluntary approaches. The argument about compulsory levies and their value is essentially a practical one based on what works best. The hon. Member for Fife, Central made great play of the experience of other European countries, but there is only one major one that operates the sort of compulsory levy system of which the hon. Gentleman was talking. The French have had considerable success in their training experience, but the majority of those who have examined the system reckon that their levy system has been irrelevant to it.
It is not as though we in Britain are without any practical experience of operating a levy system. We had one, under Governments of both parties, from 1964 through to the early 1980s. If the hon. Member for Fife, Central is right when he says that we do not have a world-class work force in the construction industry, the roots of that must go back to the 15 years when we had the sort of levy system that he considers to be a panacea which will solve all problems.
The Government's philosophy on training, as I explained when I replied to a recent debate on the subject, is to work with employers to improve the quality and quantity of training. That is the way in which we shall achieve the productivity improvements to which the hon. Gentleman rightly attaches importance. Most employers feel strongly that a voluntary partnership will work best. Where there is support for a statutory approach, as there is in this instance, we shall accommodate it. The hon. Member for Fife, Central should recognise the irony of the Opposition rebuking the Government for our attachment to voluntarism during a debate on a statutory levy.

Mr. McLeish: The Minister cannot have it all ways. The attack on the Government's form of voluntarism was based on their hypocrisy. The CITB was given a conditional reprieve. The Government were in the curious position of wanting to step back from interfering with industry while saying to the board, "Yes, you can operate on your own, but you must have more exemptions for small businesses and a low payroll levy. You must not use funds from the levy to invest in youth training." That is a curious form of voluntarism. We have argued that over-prescription will stem from the voluntarism that the Minister is preaching.

Mr. Jackson: The other great theme of the hon. Gentleman's speech was small firms, and I shall take it up. Before doing so, I express the view that he has not recognised the extent to which there has been consultation with the industry about the operation of the CITB. The decision to retain the principle of a statutory levy arose from consultation with the industry, as did the various reforms which have taken place within the board. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that every arrangement is


perfect. It is necessary to keep arrangements under review, and that is what we did. The consequences of that are the changes to and reforms within the CITB to which he referred.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central talked about the levy and the level of the CITB's income. Secondly, he referred to the small firms exclusion threshold. The levy of 0·25 per cent. was a matter for the board, and it was the board that proposed it. The income from it will be the same as that which would have been derived from a per capita levy. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Opposition's plan for a further review, should they form a Government. I take from that the implication that the hon. Gentleman would intend to increase the levy. I can imagine the kind of welcome that that would receive from the building industry, which I hope will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said—indeed, I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will draw its attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. McLeish: rose——

Mr. Jackson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a correction.

Mr. McLeish: There is no need for correction. The Minister has raised issues which were not discussed. No one suggested the imposition of a bigger levy. The important feature was that a Labour Government would conduct a positive review—not a political review. There is a significant difference between that, as a statement, and the logical development—as in the mind of the Minister—to the position that the Government have reached.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): A positive review results in a tax increase.

Mr. Jackson: As my hon. Friend says, a positive review results in a tax increase.
The hon. Gentleman cannot attack the Government for having fixed the levy at too low a rate and then attempt to deny the perfectly logical implication that it is his intention to increase the levy.
The hon. Gentleman made great play of the reduction in levy income. That was the other aspect of his argument, but he now seeks to imply that he does not believe that that income should be made up by increasing the levy, having made the point that levy income has been reduced. In fact, the reduction in the income is due to the reduction in the size of the coverage of the board due, for example, to the removal of various sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton recognised that the industry has many different sectors and aspects to it. That has been reflected in the changes in the scope and coverage of the CITB that we have developed. The board's total coverage has been reduced by 25 per cent., and that is what the reduction in income reflects.
It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman recognised the strength of the CITB's reserve position but did not seem to draw any conclusions from that about what would be an appropriate levy.

Mr. McLeish: The implication was that if the CITB continues to use up its reserves as it is doing at the moment, within a few years those reserves will have disappeared. The first question to ask the Minister is

whether that makes sense for a board which has substantial assets and wishes to retain them. Secondly, if there are cuts in youth training funding and in the income generated by the levy, will that not result in both the volume and quality of training being drastically cut in the next two or three years?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has a lot of explaining to do to the building industry. He wants to increase the levy—that is a reasonable implication of his remarks about its being too low—but he now says that the reserves should not be spent. It would be difficult to say to the building industry, especially in the present economic downturn, that a board with substantial reserves should maintain them—and possibly even increase them—while raising the levy that it imposes upon the companies in the sector. That is an unreasonable suggestion to make to the building industry at the present juncture, and the hon. Gentleman should reflect on that.
The hon. Gentleman's other main point related to the exemption of small firms. It was interesting that although the hon. Gentleman affected to be a friend of the small firms—"Give them a chance to contribute to the levy" seemed to be the tone of his argument—he wants to increase the burden on them. That is the logical implication of the proposition that the level for the exclusion of small firms has been set too high.
When we consider the small firms' exclusion from something like a statutory levy, we must ask whether the game is worth the candle. That was precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. The construction industry contains an impressive number of small firms. The most recent census of production shows 160,000 such firms, many of which are very small, as my hon. Friend knows the industry so well can testify. Indeed, 14,801 firms have payrolls of £15,000 or less, and 23,022 have payrolls of £45,000 or less according to the most recent census of production.
If the scope of the levy is extended as the hon. Gentleman would like, many thousands of small firms will be brought into the requirements. Policing them will be extremely complex, difficult and burdensome, and what would be achieved as a result? Although there are many small firms in the industry, the vast majority of its employees work for the larger companies. In fact, 10 per cent. of the firms employ 76 per cent. of the employees—and pay 73 per cent. of the levy. Those circumstances are reflected in the fact that the loss of income to the CITB from raising the small firms exclusion level from £15,000 to £45,000 is only £1·8 million.
The hon. Gentleman talked about stresses and strains on the budget as a result of the change in the exclusion level, but £1·8 million out of an annual total levy income of nearly £60 million does not strike me as being a major stress or strain. The House is obliged to set against that £1·8 million the savings in hassle and bureaucracy affecting many thousands of small firms which we shall achieve by raising the small firms exclusion level. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that point.
This is a very interesting illustration of the dangers of the statutory approach that the hon. Gentleman favours. The danger implicit in any statutory approach is the extension of law-making, rule-making and bureaucracy. There is inevitably a tendency to focus on the statutory arrangements for their own sake, rather than to keep one's eye on the ball in terms of more and better training. The


way to keep one's eye on the ball in that respect is to win the co-operation of employers rather than to proceed as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Mr. Peter Newman

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mr. Bowen Wells: I want to bring to the attention of the House the sad case of my constituent Mr. Peter Newman, and to the hopelessness of that gentleman's situation. I do so with a view to drawing attention to what I think is a gap in the provision for people suffering from the mental illness of which Peter Newman is a victim. Let me begin by referring to some points in Peter Newman's recent history. Because of the shortage of time, I shall leave out quite a lot of detail.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in his place. I have received from him many sensitive, generous and kind letters about this difficult case. I know very well that he will treat it with great seriousness and will try to find an answer. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) also in his place. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) wished to be mentioned in the context of this case, as it involves a person who, in layman's language, is suffering from schizophrenia. Mr. Peter Newman has never been positively diagnosed as schizophrenic, although a social worker once admitted to his mother, quietly and without commitment, that he had been diagnosed as paranoid with psychotic phases.
One of the key points that I want to draw to the attention of the House is that psychiatrists cannot truly identify, and will not designate, Peter Newman as suffering from any real or recognisable mental illness that could be treated under the Mental Health Acts of 1959 and 1983. In my view, that is one of the gaps in the provision.
Peter Newman has made two attempts to commit suicide. One of these occurred in July 1986, when he was a patient at Long Grove long-stay hospital. The fact that he had been sectioned to be there shows that he suffers from a very serious mental illness. He threw himself from a top-floor window and suffered very serious brain damage. His mother and family took a great deal of time to bring him round and restore him to some kind of normal health. In 1987, he was transferred to a hospital nearer his home—the Princess Alexandra—but he escaped and threw himself from the multi-storey car park, inflicting very serious physical damage on himself. Peter Newman is clearly very determined to commit suicide, and is thus a serious danger to himself.
It is not that many of the authorities have not made some provision for Peter. It is not that they have not been very worried indeed about him and have not tried to diagnose the problem and treat it in some way. Indeed, he spent a year, at the expense of the North East Thames regional health authority, in an extremely costly and excellent hospital—St. Andrews in Northampton. The authorities have done a great deal to try to treat him. Peter Newman released himself from St. Andrews and had to be brought back, after which he finally released himself into society. That was only to pick a fight with his brother when he returned to Hertford, and the Hertford magistrates committed him to Pentonville prison, just before Christmas 1990. All of us concerned with the case were relieved that he was there, because at least he was safe


there. The prison authorities put him straight into the hospital wing, where he remained for the whole of his three months' confinement.
On his release, in January this year, there was no place for him to go. Therefore, I made arrangements with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). the Minister for Housing and Planning, for him to be given addresses of hostels in London. The prison had given him a list of hostels dated 1988, so it was well out of date. He found hostel accommodation. A few weeks later, he broke into Buckingham palace and was arrested by the police. They did not charge him, because they recognised that he was suffering from a mental illness, but instead they took him back to the hostel.
He was then found riding on the outside of trains in the Southern region, arrested again and taken back to the hostel. He was last seen walking among fast-moving traffic in Edmonton, arrested, not charged, and taken by the police to where he is now, Hackney hospital. Two doctors sectioned him under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, to be detained for a 28-day assessment order. He cannot release himself from that hospital.
I fear that, when he is released, Peter Newman will be released into a world in which there is no provision for him, and he cannot be treated or taken care of. During the time that he was in Northampton, all of us concerned in the case were worried about what would happen to him when he came out. I wrote to the district health authority and to the social services department of the Hertfordshire county council. It is worth reading their replies to me, because they are supposed to take care of him.
The chairman of the health authority said:
The latest information I have had is that Peter Newman is due to be released at the end of next week and I have to confirm that following the Forensic Psychiatrist's report, Peter Newman will not be the responsibility of the Health Service.
I understand that he would therefore be the responsibility of the Social Services who, as you know, had provided a place for him in one of their homes but he walked out from it. They have no authority to force him to stay. I am sure that Mr. Laming"—
the director of social services in Hertfordshire county council—
has replied to you in a similar manner and that due to his history, the Local Council representatives will be visiting him prior to his discharge concerning his housing. This action is in line with the recommendations made in the Case Conference held on 15 November 1990.
The social services director, Mr. Herbert Laming, said:
By all means, take up the case of Peter Newman, since it illustrates extremely well the difficulties which are being faced by Social Services Departments when they are being asked to provide services for people who either refuse to accept what is offered to them, or behave in ways that ensure failure of the placement, or need services which can only be provided by other agencies.
In Peter Newman's case, we have had the experience in the past that we have found residential homes which were prepared to offer him a place, only for him to refuse to accept. We have tried to accommodate him in the residential homes run by the County Council for people with mental health problems, but his behaviour could not be contained in this setting. More recently, his propensity for violent behaviour resulted in the prison sentence he is currently serving.
Of the residential resources approached on Peter's behalf by our staff, only two expressed a willingness to consider him. One is Kneesworth House, which is a private hospital, and if they were to admit him, his place would have to be paid for by the local Health Authority (as they have done on a previous occasion when Peter was admitted to St. Andrews, a similar hospital). The second offer to consider Peter came

from a residential home in Devon, whose charges are in the region of £20,000 to £40,000 per annum … The sponsorship budget available to the Department is fully committed and I regret that we are therefore unable to provide funding for such a placement.
Therefore, neither the health nor the social services authorities in Hertfordshire provide a place for Peter to go. I sought a place for him from those responsible for the homeless, but found that there was no local authority provision for people in his position, so there was no question of his being offered such accommodation.
That means that Peter is left to wander aimlessly and hopelessly in London without treatment. Authorities cannot detain him to provide him with the 24-hour care that he needs or prevent him from releasing himself. He needs to be restrained and to have his liberty curtailed, yet there is no way to do so under the current Mental Health Acts.
Care can be provided by the health and social services and by homelessness offices as well as by the police and the prison service. Indeed, many mentally ill people, like Peter, are accustomed to being accommodated in their hospitals, which are the only places where they can be put. Great responsibility lies with the psychiatric services and the mental health commissioners.
At the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister, I went to see the mental health commissioner, Professor Evelyn Murphy. At present, it is the fashion to try not to keep anyone in detention if one can possibly avoid it. Although that is laudable and I understand it, it has resulted in a grey area. People are not positively identified as suffering from a mental illness under the definition of the Act, yet by any normal person's judgment, and certainly in the judgment of their family, they are clearly not acting in their own interests. They are vulnerable and a danger to themselves as well as to their community and family.
Mrs. Newman has concluded that her son is lost. He will either kill himself or somebody else. Only in the latter case will his problem be solved by a long-term prison sentence, which he will probably serve in the mental hospital wing of a prison. That is unacceptable, and we cannot allow this to continue.
I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to set up urgently a committee of experts to make recommendations on how people in Peter's condition can be detained, treated and given long-term security under restraint. If necessary, the committee should make recommendations to alter the Mental Health Acts 1959 and 1983 to permit that to happen.
Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend to provide suitable accommodation as a halfway house. Perhaps such people could be identified not as mentally ill under the 1983 Act, but as sufficiently mentally ill that they cannot look after themselves and need to be looked after. I also call on my hon. Friend to meet with me psychiatric consultants and to ask them to examine the position and to make recommendations for alternatives to current practice and definitions of mental illness, so that people in Peter's position can be treated and detained, as I am sure the whole community would wish them to be.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for allowing me the opportunity to contribute


to this important, albeit short, debate. I do so for a number of reasons—not least Mrs. Newman, my hon. Friend's constituent, who wrote to me about her son's case. I am particularly interested because of my membership of the Select Committee on Health.
I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said. He has represented his constituent and his family positively and sensitively in a difficult area. He has highlighted one of the grave gaps in our policy on community care, with particular reference to the mentally ill—the category into which Peter Newman falls. Those people are dealt with inadequately under the current legislation, and the available accommodation is inadequate to deal with a case such as that of Peter Newman. He has spent a limited time in prison, but that is not the place for someone suffering from a mental illness.
My hon. Friend has asked for certain assurances and commitments from the Government. Those requests are in line with the views of the Select Committee on Social Services, which produced a report on mental illness and community care in the previous Session of Parliament. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he can tell me when his Department intend to reply to that report, which has an important bearing on the serious case that my hon. Friend has raised.

12 midnight

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) illustrates the difficulties in the law and practice in the treatment of, and facilities for, mentally ill people. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford on raising this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield asked when the Government expect to respond to the Select Committee on Social Services report on arrangements for provision for the mentally ill. That response will be given shortly—it is reasonably imminent.
My hon. Friends will appreciate that I have some difficulty in responding to the specifics of the case raised tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford has argued about the specific nature of the provisions and services available to his constituent. He will understand that those issues relate to an individual case and are bound by the normal duty of confidentiality which govern the relationship between a national health service patient and his clinical advisers.
My hon. Friend disagreed with the clinical assessment of Peter Newman, but I cannot enter into an argument about that. I am not a clinician and therefore I am unable to argue about whether the psychiatrist's clinical assessment was right or wrong. Even if I were able to decide on that assessment, it would be a confidential matter between the psychiatrist and the patient and not one that should be properly traded across the Floor of the House. I do not believe that it would be right for me to get involved in the specifics of the Peter Newman case. I can, however, talk about the arrangements which are made to treat that type of patient in general, and the Government's approach to that.
My hon. Friend said that Peter Newman "needs his liberty curtailed". That goes to the heart of the matter. The House must recognise—I know that my hon. Friend does—that to deny any citizen his liberty is a grade A civil rights issue. The subject does not lend itself to administrative finesse. Parliament has rightly insisted that it should be laid down in detail in statute law. If the suspicion grew that a clinician was playing fast and loose with the statutory definition of the circumstances in which liberty can be denied, he would be hauled up not merely for his clinical judgment but also on legal grounds. It is for Parliament alone to describe the circumstances in which any citizen of this country can be compulsorily denied his liberty or be subjected to compulsory clinical investigation.
The mere fact of mental illness does not remove from the citizen in all circumstances the right and ability to take decisions about his own life. Mental illness removes that right in some instances, but those circumstances are defined in the Mental Health Act 1983. If my hon. Friend wishes to argue that the statutory definition of the circumstances in which freedom can be removed needs to be extended or redefined, it is incumbent on him to propose draft amendments to the Mental Health Act to that end. Such amendments would prescribe the circumstances in which he thinks that liberty should be curtailed and which are not covered by the definitions to be found, most importantly, in section 3 of the Mental Health Act.
I put the ball back in the court of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford not merely as a debating point but because the issue has been regularly raised by those concerned about and interested in the subject. The Government have said that they are always open to proposals on how the law can be amended or refined, but we have not yet received detailed proposals showing precisely how the law is inadequate and how the grade A civil rights issue can be advanced.
It is not enough to take a particular case. There is an old saying that hard cases make bad law, so we need to define the circumstances——

Mr. Wells: It was precisely because the definitions in the Mental Health Act needed redefining that I asked my hon. Friend the Minister to help me and everyone concerned by establishing a committee of experts or a group to determine how we can alter the law to meet the gap in provision and in definition. Of course the liberty of the individual must be preserved, but not to the point of making vulnerable people walk the streets of London, without treatment, help or housing.
I need my hon. Friend's help. I do not have a research assistant to do the work. Neither I nor any hon. Member has the resources to do it. We need experts, and I am certainly no expert.

Mr. Dorrell: Indeed, but the difficulty with establishing a committee is that its terms of reference need to be clearly defined. Our minds are not closed on the subject, but the onus is on those who argue that the law is inadequate to describe the circumstances which they believe should be covered by the law——

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford also requested that, pending any such committee being set up, he might seek to find appropriate accommodation for


Peter Newman? It will need to be accommodation with 24-hour care, treatment and supervision, because the man is mentally ill and requires such care, treatment and supervision. As my hon. Friend said, at present there is no suitable accommodation, there are no resources and there are no facilities to provide the necessary care for this vulnerable person.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has neatly pre-empted my next remark.
I have dealt with the definition of circumstances in which we deny someone his liberty under the Mental Health Act. If an individual does not come within the terms of the Act as written—or even as amended, as a result of my hon. Friend's initiative—we must conclude that he has precisely the same right to refuse treatment for mental or any other illness as any of my hon. Friends, or any other citizen. We all have that important right to discharge ourselves from an NHS hospital, although it may not be in our best clinical interests. I would not wish to finesse or blur Mr. Newman's right to discharge himself from facilities that may indeed be in his best clinical interest, if he is not covered by the Act.
That, of course, increases the onus on us to ensure that provision is adequate, and that mentally ill people who are not subject to the section power accept that the available treatment meets their needs. It is to that aim that the major enhancement of the mental illness programme on which we have embarked is directed. The date of 1 April 1991 marks not only the general implementation of the NHS reforms, but the beginning of the implementation of a major programme of enhancement of mental health facilities within the NHS, initiated by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman).
On 1 April, five points in our mental illness programme begin to take effect. First, each health authority has been charged with the introduction of the care-programme approach to treatment provision for the mentally ill. For those who are under the care of a health authority. the authority is required to ensure an individually tailored care programme for each patient, which must name a key person who is responsible for ensuring that the health and social facilities described in the programme are made available to the individual who benefits. That is a major enhancement of the management of mental illness services.
Secondly, from 1 April we shall implement the mental illness specific grant, which will provide for total additional expenditure by social service departments of £30 million in the first year. Thirdly, we have announced the approval of capital allocations through the local government finance system, so that local authority social services departments not only have the specific grant to support their revenue expenditure, but have access to capital funds to ensure that the facilities are there on which the expenditure can be made.
Fourthly, we are continuing with the capital loans fund, which is designed to ensure that inappropriate, old-fashioned mental illness facilities are taken out of commission more quickly, and that the capital released thereby is used to provide more appropriate, effective care facilities within the community. Fifthly—perhaps as important as any other proposal, in the context of cases such as Peter Newman's—the next financial year will see physical expression of our programme for the homeless mentally ill in London, to ensure that, for those who slip through one net—and, to be honest, if we are providing for the majority of mentally ill people in the community, some will slip through—there is also a safety net to give them a staircase back into mainstream provision.
That programme adds up to £155 million of new money for mental illness services over the next three years. I do not think that anyone can doubt the Government's commitment to enhancing provision, precisely to meet the test that I described: that those who are not detained compulsorily under the Mental Health Act must have access to a range of provision that will cause them not to wish to discharge themselves voluntarily from provision that the law does not allow us to provide compulsorily.
I hope that my hon. Friends accept that we have clearly defined the circumstances in which provision should be compulsory. Those are very tightly drawn, properly in my view. If someone is not covered by such provision, it is incumbent on us to ensure that there is adequate voluntary provision, and to address that priority as well.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.